


Cc 

c c 

C c 

Cc 

cc 



C 
c< 

c «. 

c c 

c < 

cm 

cc 

77 c 



Cc CI C. 

I cc . Cc <c 
C7 cc C c 



d cc: cc v 

C ex <2 < 

«C cc C r « 
< cc «C ' c 
CC C O. a 

777 cc c cc 
<7 ■ c<: -^cc 

<Z CC C CC 

ccc cjtc 
cc ccc - 
ci c cc 

C CC 

C7CC C7 CC 

cc c cc 
cc cc 

CCC ^ 

ccc c 

: <CC C 

' dC c 



C C C 

ICC 

«CC C 

«C C 

C c 

<:c c 

ccc - 
ccc 

CCC 
c c 

<CC 
a c c 

CcC 

cc 

c c 



CC 

cc 

C d 

c< « 
c < 



CCC < <^ C. 

CCC Cc C 

ccc cc C 

C C «C <z 

CC C C 

c ■ c <_cc r- 

CC C CC « 

CC Cc 

CC C ^ 

CC C cc <7 

cc Ccc <I 

cc Ccc .< 
c cc c cc 

<"' cc cr: c c 
C CC C Cc 
fC Cc C cc 

<: cc cr cc 
cC cc C cc 
C cc <r CC 

< cc c cc 

c cc c cc 

«c cc c_ c c 
c"« cc <r c c 

« c< C CC 

< Cc c cc 

— > c; *^ cc c 



CC 

cc 

cc 

c<c 

cc 

ccc 

CC 

Cc 
Cc 
cc 

C ' 



c c 

C C 

c c 

c c 

<r c 



Cf-JS 



c ^ 
c c 

c c 



c c 

CC 

C C 

C C 

c c 

CC 
cc 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

C£"V 

■Shelf..!....... 



c 

<£ 

C 

c 
C 

d 



c c 

c 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



CCC 5 <KC < : 

«'CC C- C ' 4 

CC c «, < 

C Ccc 

c C c c 
CC C' C 
c <r c « 

CC (C.« 
cc c c 

CC C ! CC 
c C c cC 

CC C C 

<r <r CC'< 

cc CC C 

7: cC Cc-C • 

7 cc C( <C 

1. cc C c <C, 

i" cc c o <: 
I cc CCc CC 

rice c c <r 

"7 cc ,c Cc v 
H < < c c c 

C(( (C < 
CCc c CC 

<r f ^ c c c 
77 ' ' c CC < 
7 - C CC 4 

c> c cc < 

Ccc cc 



c__ r c ccc 
^r c: < c 
C CC 

cccc< 

ccc c c - 



cc 


cc cc 


CC. 


C C C C 


«. 


«c< c <C < 


.-< 


< <. <^_ 


€ 


cfC C C 


c 


ccC C C 


c 


c c c c 


c 


o ccc 



CCC C 

Cc? ^ 



<; 



cc <^ 

c c 

S C 






c <c 



C c c 


*^_ 


C c c 


c 


C c ' 


c 


C7 @ c 


c_ 


<^ 


c ■<. 


C c 


c- <7 


C c < 

C cc 


c 


C c 


<C7 


c c <■ 


c 


C C; 


c 


C c 


c„ 


CC 


c 


C r 


c 


C_c 


<c 


>•' cc 


<r 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 


Cc 


c 


c <c 


c c 


C- ? C 


c 



c c 

Cc C 



Ccc c 

CccC 

cc c c: 
c c 
c c 

C7 C 

i :<r ' c: 

;OC 



cc c 
CCC 
c c 
c c 



<sC 



C' c 

c: « 

C7 -. 

:'C C 

c c 

'«C« • c 
<^ c 

c <■ 

a c 
C c 
c c 

c c 



CC 

cc 

c d 



C<c C 

c cc 

<c < <z 

C o 



c 

<r < 

<r c . 
C « 



ccc 

c c 
c' c 



< C 

C c 

' c 
v. c 

< C 



cc 



c: 



c c 
C ( 

C c 

c c 



<r c <r 

c: < cr 
Or cr 



c c <-<r 
c c c cz <c 

ft " C CT C C 

c cr c c 

cr <z cr < 

c o c <: 
c c c c k 

c_ <r: cz <z 

c c: c c <r 

c cr cc cr 
C C cc cc 

jcz <r c c c 
CT C cc «r 

ZT' C C <CZ_ 

ci c c. <r 

C ' Ccc C 

«c < c «z: 

5L535C cr. 

CCcc; c\ 



^ ccc 

c<cc 



C C 



c: cc 

c c_ 

c c 

c C 

< 



cc <<c'C CCC 
r< < x <1 CC 

c-<c <C 

=— < c <r v*g <Z: <C ' 



" CC CCC € : 

" cc CCC C^ : 

- <C <~C« CI -- 

^7 cc < cc? CL < 

^cc cc 1 <ZT 

_Z Cc C C -c < _ 

<n.cc cc c d 

CI C CC ' 

<c c c c <c 

<z c c < «c 

C!j c C C <3C 

c c c c <c < 
c c c c « 

— c < <r c: «: 
c c c; d <r 

= c c " c cr cc 

x c cr <r c 



cr 'c- ccc 
Ccc <r 



ci rex" 

ccc c: 

cc <c 

<r~«c cr 

CiCC c 



C C 

<c r c 

cc « c 

cc CC 

cC < 

cc • ^, 
cc cr 

cC"-c CC 

cCc? C 

cC < 7 \ C< 

C'O'CCC cc 

c C t^rc < 

c<r c<X < 
cC <^ 

c *<S < 
^c ^cx 

c c <ZC 
c c: c« 

C C< C 

c c c 

c <L C 

«r c c: 

< c c 
c c c 

c c C 



c - 

CC f 

cc « 
cc 

< ( - 

cc 



C 



c C 
c 

f c 

< c 

< c 



c C 
c c 
c C 

c: c 

C c 
C C 



<z 



c c 
<^ c 

C c 
< < 

r c 



<C. 

<C 

c<_ 

«c 
C 



«C 



c c 
c c 

C C 

c c 

c c 

c c 



<8tC 

CC 

<cc 



""CC 

c«C 
<CC 

<ccc 





JcDy r\<2^/. M, v5©ffey. 






PRICE FIFTY CENTS, 







MARIOLATRY, 



AND OTHER 



ERRORS OF POPERY 



r- 1 r^^^i^-s— -« *-> 



"7^ 



A brief investigation of the Spirit and of sonqe of the 
Doctrines aqd Practices of the Ranqan Catholic Church, 



-*<>♦"- — *-*o* 



For the mystery of iniquity doth already work." — 2d Thes., i. 7, 



A. COFFEY, 

Late Pastor of \\\e First Baptist Churcr), 
JndEpendEncE, Kansas, 

— = Z/jrkh- 1 



1885. 
INDEPENDENCE, KANSAS. 

SOUTH KANSAS TRIBUNE BOOK A JOB PRINT. 



6 



The iw . , 4 

OF CONOkhSS 
WASHIWotO* 






PREFACE. 



The attack upon me, which led me to present this little book 
to the public, was made solely because I stand for the defence of 
the Bible and evangelical truth, and against corrupt traditions, 
deceitful errors, — and especially idolatry wearing the name of 
Christianity. I have written, therefore, not in self-defence, but 
in the name of the Christian religion. I am constitutionally op- 
posed to "theological polemics" but when modern liberalism de- 
mands that we make the mantle of a false charity so broad as to 
cover and endorse the vilest iniquities by a cringing silence, in 
the name of my Master, I most earnestly protest against such 
demand. 

I have made no attempt to write a history ; yet the histori- 
cal references will be found reliable. My aim has been to "lift a 
warning voice" and awake the spirit of inquiry and investiga- 
tion. If my efforts, in this direction, prove successful, I shall be 
satisfied. A. Coffey. 

Independence, Kas., Nov. ist, 1885. 



Copyright, 1885, by A. Coffey. 
All rights reserved. 



CHAPTER I. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



The Diocesan Bishop having announced a visit to the Church 
of Saint Andrew, situated in the City of Independence, Kansas, 
to be made on Saturday, May 9th, 1885, for the purpose of ad- 
ministering the "Sacrament of Confirmation," the Catholic por- 
tion of our population were filled with excitement ; and for sev- 
eral days previous to the anticipated event, which to them was 
filled with interests of vast importance, they were busily engaged 
in elaborate preparations for giving his reverence an honorable 
reception. As one witnessed the zest with which these evidences 
of respect and even abject reverence were planned and carried 
out, he might well inquire whether we .have been carried back- 
ward through five or six centuries of the world's progress, and 
are living again under the black pall of ignorance and supersti- 
tion which characterized the "dark ages" of the world's history. 
Awakened from such a reverie by the shrill whistle of the loco- 
motive engine, that wonderful invention which has given to mod- 



ern commerce such a mighty impetus, and has aided so mate- 
rially in disseminating general intelligence, and in providing the 
facilities for the acquisition of knowledge, and the accumulation 
of profound wisdom, we are soon reminded that we are living 
near the close of the nineteenth century, and that the terrible 
events of that sad period in the world's history are fast receding 
into the distant past. Living as we do under the benign influ- 
ence of the Government of the United States of America, whose 
basal doctrine is that "All men are created equal," and whose 
national standard, the beautiful "stars and stripes," is recognized 
throughout the civilized world as the symbol of civil and relig- 
ious liberty, and the emblem of human equality, we very natur- 
ally inquire whence this shadow of mediaeval superstition and 
abject adulation of a mere mortal man, so antagonistic in its 
nature to the spirit of our free institutions ? The only satisfac- 
tory answer to this inquiry is that the Spirit, the Doctrines and 
the Practices of the so-called Roman Catholic Church, are still 
stamped with the characteristics of that age in which the Roman 
See boasted of universal dominion and attained so nearly to its 
realization. Tyranny, usurpation, moral corruption, and base 
deception, were in that age, the characteristics of the popes and 
their minions, while their dupes were distinguished for igno- 
rance, superstition, vice and degradation. "Like people, like 
priest," the language of God's ancient prophet, is a strikingly 
accurate description of the clergy and laity in their relations to 
each other. It would be easy to cite a formidable array of au- 
thorities to show that this picture is not too dark ; but one or 
two extracts must suffice. Cardinal Baronius, the celebrated an- 
nalist of the Roman Catholic Church, and the great champion 
of popery, will certainly be taken as good authority. He says : 
"O ! what was then the face of the holy Roman church ! how 



5 



filth)', when the vilest and most powerful prostitutes ruled in 
Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway dioceses were made and un- 
made, bishops were consecrated, and — which is inexpressibly 
horrible to be mentioned — false popes, their paramours were 
thrust into the chair of St. Peter, who, in being numbered as 
popes, serve no purpose except to fill up the catalogue of the 
popes of Rome. For who can say that persons thrust into the 
popedom without any law by harlots of this sort, were legiti- 
mate popes of Rome ? In this way, lust, supported by secular 
power, excited to frenzy, in the rage of domination, ruled in all 
things." 

The same author says again, "It is evident that one can 
scarcely believe, without occular evidence, what unworthy, base, 
execrable and abominable things the holy, apostolical See, which 
is the pivot upon which the whole Catholic Church revolves, was 
forced to endure, when the princes of this age, although Chris- 
tian, yet arrogated to themselves the election of the Roman pon- 
tiffs. Alas, the shame! alas, the grief! what monsters horrible 
to behold were then, by them, intruded on the holy See, which 
angels revere ! what evils ensued ! what tragedies did they per- 
petrate ! with what polutions was this See, though itself without 
spot or wrinkle then stained ! with what corruptions infected ! 
with what filthiness defiled ! and by these blackened with per- 
petual infamy." 

Pope Innocent III, in a bull, hurled against Count Raimond 
of Thoulouse, in the south of France, enunciates the doctrine "we 
must not observe faith toward those who keep not faith towards 
God, or who are separated from the communion of the faithful." 
When this perfidious doctrine was promulgated by the author- 
ity of councils, popes and clergy, and universally accepted by 
the laity it is not strange that treachery, deception and "pious 



6 



frauds" were found on every hand ; and the public conscience 
having been prostituted by the workings of so corrupt a standard 
of morality, it was a very easy step in moral degredation, to al- 
low the same standard to guide them in their conduct and inter- 
course with each other. Accordingly we find perfidy, treachery 
and deception prevailing everywhere. 

Now since the acknowledged authorities of the "church" de- 
clare that the pope is infallible and the church unchangeable, her 
children have no right to complain if we conclude that the stand- 
ards of morality in the Roman Church are no higher to-day. 
Whatever improvement may be observed is to be attributed to 
outside pressure and the general dissemination of moral intelli- 
gence rather than to any internal process of purification. 

Perhaps this may account for the apparent effort of an anon- 
ymous Catholic writer, — in the capacity of a correspondent of 
the "Star and Kansan," a secular newspaper of our city, — to de- 
ceive the Bishop into the belief that the secular press — or at 
least that particular paper — was in sympathy with the doctrines 
peculiar to the Catholic church, by publishing the day previous 
to his arrival an article concerning one of these doctrines. At 
any rate as there had been no allusion, so far as I know, in that 
paper, to that doctrine there appears to have been no provoking 
cause ; and I know of no better way to account for its appear- 
ance at that particular juncture, than on the above supposition. 

With something of this feeling the author ventured to publish 
a reply to this communication in the next issue, designed to dis- 
pel the idea that any large proportion of the readers of that pa- 
per had any sympathy with the sentiments of the writer ; and I 
have learned since that I was not the only one who sought op- 
portunity to reply. To this reply the same writer published a 
"rejoinder," which called for another very brief answer from me. 



This ended the discussion, so far as the "Star and Kansan" was 
concerned ; and as I supposed the whole matter would rest there. 
But I soon found that I had inflicted a much severer wound 
than I was aware of; for "The Weekly Catholic" puplished at 
Leavenworth in this State, took the matter up and the editor in 
long-winded editorials in various issues of his paper continued 
the discussion, with much acrimony, and furious zeal. He seems 
to have thought these little squibs were likely, by their explo- 
sion, to shatter into fragments the old decaying superstructure 
for whose defence he considers himself responsible. 

In the very outset these editorials were marked by so much 
disposition to misrepresent and misstate the facts, and were so 
full of the spirit of malevolence and malediction, and so abound- 
ed with vile epithets and coarse ribaldry, that it was immediately 
evident that I could not trust myself in his hands by entering 
into a discussion of the matters at issue in his own paper. In 
the meantime the matter has assumed such proportions, that it 
would be impossible to find space in any other periodical for its 
investigation. Still the questions involved are so important in 
the maintenance of the truth that silence would seem like cow- 
ardice, and recreancy to the truth. But the only avenue open 
for such discussion, is in an independent private publication. 

Furthermore, the " Weekly Catholic" claims to be the only Cath- 
olic paper published in the State, and, in the same issues in which 
this controversy is carried on, has the endorsement of Bishop 
Mary, commanding all pastors in the State to give it their en- 
dorsement and see that its wide circulation be secured in their 
respective parishes. Thus the treatment accorded to me and my 
published statements, has the virtual endorsement of the Bishop 
and clergy of the entire State. I feel, therefore, compelled to 
give to the public this production in defense of the truth. 



8 



In order, therefore, that the reader may know fully the points 
at issue the next chapter will be made up of the entire newspa- 
per controversy as far as published up to the present writing : 



CHAPTER II. 



THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

[From the Star and Kansan, May 8th, 1885.] 

"Maryolatary," Kather Maryolatry. 

Is it thus that our enlightened brethren, having exhausted all their elo- 
quence and learning's lore on Catholic idolatry, must needs take up the inter- 
esting theme of Maryolatry ? Can we, poor self-adulators who would feign at- 
tract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those whose 
self esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as virtues, shall 
such zealots berate those who fulfill the dictates of the "Holy Bible" in repeat- 
ing the words of the angel whom God sent to the ever Virgin Mary with this 
message, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; Blessed art thou among 
women." Luke, 1st chap. 28th verse. Why do not those Bible enthusiasts 
practice its teachings ? If they examine they will find that the spirit and letter 
of the Bible is taught and practised only in the Catholic church ; that sacred 
book so hackneyed, trifled with, made subservient to man's grossest passions ; 
why do not those learned anti-Mary olaters learn lessons of humility from the 
chosen people of God, of whom they read in the "Bible," Luke, 1:6. "Zachary 
and Elizabeth were both just before God, walking in all the commandments 
and justifications of the Lord without blame." Can we say as much for any in 
our day? Yet this woman, "blessed before God," says to Mary "Whence is 
this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Oh, Elizabeth, 
you were "blameless before God," but in our enlightened age you would be 
guilty of Maryolatry. Again, Mary, the virgin mother of the world's redeemer 



says of herself, "Henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." Oh, Im- 
maculate Mary, we are too enlightened in this nineteenth century. Let us en- 
quire if it is thus: In the "Bible" we read, "Throughout all time, from the ris- 
ing to the setting of the sun, a clean oblation shall be offered to my name." Is 
it so in our day ? Yes, in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the church which 
Christ himself established. There is His Divine Body and Blood offered in the 
manner and according to His divine injunctions. Nor is there a part of the uni- 
verse wherein that church does not offer that "clean oblation" from the rising 
to the setting of the sun," and wherever that is offered, so also is the mother 
honored, from whom He took that body. We read in the "Bible" that at the 
nuptial feast, Mary, in Her charity, intercedes with Her Son, to relieve those 
people in their embarrassment. He tells Her His hour to work miracles has 
not yet come, yet at her request He changes His eternal decree, and works 
"the miracle of changing the water into wine. In the charity which our holy 
mother church inculcates, our daily orisons will ascend to the throne of the 
Most High that the scales may fall from their eyes, that having eyes they may 
see, and find the only true path to salvation. We will also ask the Mother of 
our Divine Lord to intercede for our dear brethren, and hope She will succeed 
as at the nuptial feast of Cana. Child of Mary. 



"Maryolatry." 

[From Star and Kansan, May 15, 1885] 

Editor Star and Kansan : — An article in your paper of last week under 
the above caption arrested my attention, and after re-reading carefully, I am 
forced to pronounce the article a remarkable production. 

It is remarkable, first for its wonderful lack of perspicuity. I am undecided 
as to whether the writer was attempting to produce a burlesque on one phase 
of Catholicism, or whether he imagined he was producing an unanswerable ar- 
gument in favor of the Romish Church. If the writer intends to apply to him 
self the language he uses when he says, "Can we, poor, self-adulators who would 
fain attract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those 
whose self-esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as vir- 
rues." then I have no controversy with him on this point. 

If the author is attempting to make a sincere argument in favor of the wor- 



IO 



ship of Mary the mother of Jesus, then his production is remarkable for its aro- 
gant assumptions, in which he "begs'' the whole question. Among these as- 
sumptions I may mention the statement that the angel announcing the birth 
of Jesus worshipped Mary ; again, that Mary was "Immaculate;" again, that 
she was ever a virgin ; again, the doctrine of "Trans-substantiation," and again 
that at the request of the Mother of Jesus "he changes his eternal decree. 

All of these, and others I might mention, are pure assumptions ; having no 
basis whatever in the scriptures. To use the language of Jesus himself he is 
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 

The dogma of "The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary" was never 
authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius IX per- 
petrated the farce of issuing such a decree. 

If the writer is a "faithful catholic" he may be informed by consulting his 
superiors that he is very foolish to attempt to maintain the doctrines and prac- 
tices of his church on the basis of the Bible alone, without the help ot tradi- 
tion, which "our holy mother church" holds as of equal authority with the 
written word. The Bible teaches us to worship God only. "Thou shalt wor- 
sbip the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To worship any crea- 
ture is idolatry, hence, "Maryolatry" is idolatry. A. Coffey. 

Independence, Kansas, May 11th, 1885. 



A Rejoinder. 

[Star and Kansan May 22, 1885.] 

Mr. Editor : In thanking you for the accommodation of the columns of 
your appreciated and widely circulated paper, we would merely say we ignore 
the illiterate individual. His verbose conglomeration is totally irrelevant to 
the subject. He asks if we wish "to produce an unanswerable argument in fa- 
vor of the'Romish Church." Our intention was to adduce an argument to ren- 
der futile his vile, slanderous and malicious calumnies of the Catholic Church, 
under whose divine influence idols fell and idolators christianized throughout 
all nations. Our argument has obliged him to resort to base subterfuge — he 
says "Mayolatry is idolatry." We happen to be aware of the fact ; hence our 
indignant resentment of the malicious charge of Catholic idolatry, and that was 
the only point of controversy in our article, and not the immaculate conception, 



1 1 



which has been the belief of Catholics for nineteen hundred years The dogma 
of 1854, all scholars in the church and outside understand. In our defense of 
the veneration ot Mary, this luminary makes us say that the angel worshipped 
Mary, when he announced to her the birth of Jesus, which is ludicrously pre- 
posterous. I think every mother will say she needs no celestial or terrestrial 
messenger to announce the birth of her child. She becomes fully aware of the 
fact. The word worship is not used once in our article. The Catholic church 
has taught for nineteen centuries, throughout all nations, to worship one true 
and living God, and no more, that we must not give the honor due to God, to 
a?iy of His creatures. That to venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, 
is not idolatry, we have proved in our former article by the written word of the 
Bible, not needing tradition ; (though of equal authority) yet this would-be lit- 
eratus says we cannot sustain an argument without the aid of tradition. He 
has not been able to refute our point although he calls the scriptural quotations 
"arrogant assumptions." He alludes to our Lord's words, "teaching for doc- 
trines the commandments of men." Surely our Lord did not address these 
words to the Church, which He Himself commissioned "to teach all nations 
whatsoever He commandeth them." His words were addressed to those who 
would presume to teach before they had learned the truths He taught. These 
words, therefore, would be more applicable to A. C. During all our life, with 
all denominations, ministers and people, our associations have been of the most 
cordial and happy character. They were people of culture, and to-day we have 
some very warm and dear friends, most estimable ladies, outside of our Church, 
whom we love and esteem for their beautiful qualities of heart and mind. We 
have observed that whenever the Catholic Church is stigmatized and maligned, 
the traducers were invariably men of the lowest order of intellect and unedu- 
cated fanatics. A Child of Mary. 



That "Rejoinder." 



[Star and Kansan, May 29th.] 
As the writer, who skulks behind a pseudonym, makes no attempt at argu- 
ment but admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry, and that the Romish 
church holds that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, I have no need 
to adduce any further proof of these points. A.s to his personal abuse, vile epi- 



12 



thets and coarse billingsgate, I have only to say, I have no ambition to rival 
him in these things. If he feels better after throwing up so much bile, I am 
willing he should enjoj' the relief. When a whipped puppy howls he is hurt 
too bad to bite, and it would be cruel to give him another lick. 

Jesus says : "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you 
and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be ex- 
ceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the 
prophets which were before you." I take him for my example "who when he 
was reviled, reviled not again." A. Coffey. 

Independence, Kansas, May 23, 1885. 



"Mary olatry . " 

[From the Catholic, June 25th, 1885.] 

Some more than ordinarily mal-instructed zealots having ventilated their 
nonsense about "Mariolatry" — whatever that may be — a lady at Independence, 
through the Independence Star and Kansan, endeavored to promptly dispel the 
misrepresentation engendered by the meaningless term, but her praiseworthy 
effort brought out the following "specimen brick" from a genuine bigot fully 
up to the complete measure of ignorance that bigotry requires: 

"maryolatry." 

Emtor Star and Kansan : — An article in your paper of last week under the 
above caption arrested my attention, and after re-reading carefully, I am forced 
to pronounce the article a remarkable production. 

It is remarkable, first for its wonderful lack of perspicuity. I am undecided 
as to whether the writer was attempting to produce a burlesque on one phase 
of Catholicism, or whether he imagined he was producing an unanswerable ar- 
gument in favor of the Romish Church. If the writer intends to apply to him- 
self the language he uses when he says, "Can we, poor, self-adulators who would 
fain attract the attention of mankind to our imaginary gifts and graces, those 
whose self-esteem and egotism would make their very defects appear as vir- 
tues," ther I have no controversy with him on this point. 

If the author is attempting to make a sincere argument in favor of the wor- 
ship of Mary the mother of Jesus, then his production is remarkable for its aro- 
gant assumptions, in which he "begs" the whole question. Among these as- 



sumptions I may mention the statement that the angel announcing the birth 
of Jesus worshipped Mary : again, that Mary was "Immaculate;" again, that 
she was ever a virgin ; again, the doctrine of "Trans-substantiation," and again 
that at the request of the Mother of Jesus "he changes his eternal decree. 

All of these, and others I might mention, are pure assumptions ; having no 
basis whatever in the scriptures. To use the language of Jesus himself he is 
"teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 

The dogma of "The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary" was never 
authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius IX per- 
petrated the farce of issuing such a decree. 

If the writer is a "faithful catholic" he may be informed by consulting his 
superiors that he is very foolish to attempt to maintain the doctrines and prac- 
tices of his church on the basis of the Bible alone, without the help of tradi- 
tion, which "our holy mother church" holds as of equal authority with the 
written word. The Bible teaches us to worship God only. "Thou shalt wor- 
ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." To worship any crea- 
ture is idolatry, hence, "Maryolatry" is idolatry. A. Coffey. 

Independence, Kansas, May 11th, 1885. 

However, he not only misstated her position, but he took the most remark- 
ably good care to give no proof of his direct "assumption" that anything the 
lady stated was any "assumption"; she had given authorities for all her state- 
ments, which he cannot give for his "assumptions," and that is just what both- 
ered him. But to this caucus diction and elegance of slang of this bigot speak- 
ing of "the Romish Church," this praiseworthy lady replied : 

A REJOINDER. 

Mr. Editor : In thanking you for the accommodation of the columns of 
your appreciated and widelj- circulated paper, we would merely say we ignore 
the illiterate individual. His verbose conglomeration is totally irrelevant to 
the subject. He asks if we wish "to produce an unanswerable argument in fa- 
vor of the Romish Church." Our intention was to adduce an argument to ren- 
der futile his vile, slanderous and malicious calumnies of the Catholic Church, 
under whose divine influence idols fell and idolators christianized throughout 
all nations. Our argument has obliged him to resort to base subterfuge — he 
says "Mayolatry is idolatry." We happen to be aware of the fact, that he so 
considers it; HENCE OUR INDIGNANT RESENTMENT OF THE MA- 
LICIOUS CHARGE OF CATHOLIC IDOLATRY, and that was the 
only point ot controversy in our article, and not the immaculate conception, 
which has been the belief of Catholics for nineteen hundred years The dogma 
of 1864, all scholars in the church and outside understand. In our defense of 
the veneration ot Mary, this luminary makes us say that the angel worshipped 
Mary, when he announced to her the birth of Jesus, which is ludicrously pre- 



H 



posterous. I think every mother will say she needs no celestial or terrestrial 
messenger to announce the birth of her child. She becomes fully aware of the 
fact. The word worship is not used once in our article. The Catholic church 
has taught for nineteen centuries, throughout all nations, to worship one true 
and living God, and no more, that we must not give the honor due to God, to 
any of His creatures. That to venerate Mary because she is the mother of God, 
is not idolatry, we have proved in our former article by the written word of the 
Bible, not needing tradition ; (though of equal authority) yet this would-be lit- 
eratus says we connot sustain an argument without the aid of tradition. He 
has not been able to refute our point, although he calls the scriptural quotations 
'"arrogant assumptions." He alludes to our Lord's words, ''teaching for doc- 
trines the commandments of men." Suaely our Lord did not address these 
words to the Church, which He Himself commissioned "to teach all nations 
whatsoever He commandeth them." His words were addressed to those who 
would presume to teach before they had learned the truths He taught. These 
words, therefore, would be more applicable to A. C. During all our life, with 
all denominations, ministers and people, our associations have been of the ruo.-t 
cordial and happ3 r character. They were people of culture, and to-day we have 
some very warm and dear friends, most estimable ladies, outside of our Church, 
whom we love and esteem for their beautiful qualities of heart and mind. AVe 
have observed that whenever the Catholic Church is stigmatized and maligned, 
the traducers were invariably men of the lowest order of intellect and unedu- 
cated fanatics. . A Child of Mary. 

Which brought out this veritable gall-burst, in a style that certainly could 
delight nothing above the level of a pot-house, but which most vividly shows 
the innate foulness of a bigotry that happily is fast expiring. 



THAT "REJOINDER." 

As the writer, who skulks behind a pseudonym, makes no attempt at argu- 
ment but admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry, and that the Romish 
church holds that tradition is of equal authority with the Bible, I have no need 
to adduce any further proof of these points. As to his personal abuse, vile epi- 
thets and coarse billingsgate, I have only to say, I have no ambition to rival 
him in these things. If he feels better after throwing up so much bile, I am 
willing he should enjoy the relief. When a whipped puppy howls he is hurt 
too bad to bite, and it would be cruel to give him another lick. 



i5 



Jesus says: "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you 
and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be ex- 
ceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven ; for so persecuted they the 
prophets which were before you." I take him for my example "who when he 
was reviled, reviled not again." A. Coffey. 

Independence, Kansas, May 23, 1885. 

There is only one thing he gives "proof" for, and in the above he gives am- 
ple proof for that, that he can ignore the rules of even the commonest breeding 
with a completeness rarely seen. To use his own expression, "for personal 
abuse, vile epithets, and coarse billingsgate" — choice phrases, but he cannot 
find fault with his own expressions — he fairly takes the palm, and his disgrace- 
ful effort in that direction we charitably hope will suffice for his lifetime. Of 
course instinctive self-respect forbade the lady to reply to such a literary boor. 
But about this Romish Church before commencing, will he be good enough to 
tell us what church that is? As he appears to be perfectly familiar with "bill- 
ingsgate," we would like to ask him if there are no amenities whatever that he 
could compel himself to observe in even that favorite school of his? Because no 
matter how ignorant or presumptious a bigot nay be, he might still retain 
some portion of the instincts of a gentleman, and even the densest ignorance is 
happily seldom accompanied with the indecent slang — and towards a lady — of 
this unscrupulous romancer. Now a word from us, and we will not apply to 
him or to any other such a gentlemanly epithet as "puppy," as he applied to 
this'lady, nor will our remarks be in any way intended to "lick" such an uncul- 
tivated bigot run mad. 

To commence with, in one of his contradictions of the plain statement of 
the lady plainly before his eyes, he at once exemplifies the unscrupulous char- 
acter and downright falsification of the genuine bigot, when he avers that the 
lady "admits that the worship of Mary is idolatry" in the very face of her ''indig- 
nant resentment of the malicious charge." But this is as near any true statement 
of facts as such men ever get — the direct contrary to truth. The brazenness of 
this impugning of the known truth by his assertion of this egregrious falsehood 
shows plainer than any word of ours could show, the untenable position into 
which truth and the commonest sense drives such persons. But about "idol- 
atry" in another issue. 

With the double dealing that is the favorite means of misrepresentation 
used by such bigots, he says, "The dogma of the immaculate conception of the 
(Blessed) Virgin Mary"— there are other "virgins" of the name of Mary— "was 
never authoritatively promulgated until December 8th, 1854, when Pope Pius 
IX perpetrated the farce of issuing such a decree.' 1 ' 

As to the "tarce" of the authority and jurisdiction always exercised by the 
visible head of the church, and Christ's Vicar on earth, when speaking ex cathe- 



i6 



dra, which jurisdiction and authority was itself "decreed" at the Vatican coun- 
cil composed of 704 bishops, archbishops and patriarchs from every part and na- 
tion of the earth, from the rising to the setting of the sun, and representing 
250,000,000 people, the term 'farce" for such an act is probably as courteous as 
we might expect, and is certainly no wider from both common sense and truth 
than such bigots ordinarily venture. But there is a plain intention at misrep- 
resentation in the above. There is no other kind of falsehood so insidious, and 
consequently is reprehensible as the false insinuation that is veiled under a 
portion of truth, and at the same time such means is more cowardly than any 
other mode of falsehood, and his evident intention is to insinuate that the Im- 
maculate Conception was not a doctrine of the Church through all ages previ- 
ous to that time, and we drop his otber vagaries for other issues and meet him 
here. He can hardly be unaware of the fact that the Church defines what her 
dogmas are just as fast as the necessity arises, as when they are attacked, but 
not sooner. The Divinity of Jesus Christ was defined at the Council of Nice in 
325, was the Divinity of the Son of God, a new doctrine at that time? And so 
on through the otber eighteen general councils of the Church of God, ending 
with the Vatican Council in this century, each one defined only dogmas that 
were disputed, and only decreed what the doctrine of the Church had been from 
its very foundation. Let us go back and give him some badly needed informa- 
tion upon the uniform belief in the immaculate conception of the Mother of 
God through all ages of the Church of God. The Council of Trent declared that 
in the decree concerning original sin the Mother of God was not included, and 
ordered the decree of SLxtus IV, in relation to this doctrine to be observed. Be- 
fore that, in the fifteenth century, the Council of Basle declared this doctrine ; 
and in that century the University of Paris forbade the conferring of the degree 
of doctor of divinity on any one who denied this doctrine. The Emperor Em- 
manuel Commenus enforced the observance of the feast in 1159, and the feast 
was observed in the east during centuries before. In the "Life and Letters of 
Herbert de Lasinga, first bishop of Norwich, England, in the eleventh century, 
you will find this doctrine enunciated in his sermons, delivered as a matter of 
course, as it was the belief of all England and all Christendom at that day. But 
to remove all doubt, any fair-minded searcher after truth need only to go to the 
Greek Schismatic Church to-day, and find that during the Canon of the Mass, 
the Greek liturgy of St. Chrysostum handed down to this day from the fourth 

century makes public affirmation of this doctrine. 

But as this article is already becoming too long, we must conclude, we give 

both dates and authorities— in which we differ entirely from such as he is — 

and the evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable. Not only is this doctrine 

coeval with the Christian Church, but it is the very embodyment of reason. 

That the First Person of the Godhead as Father, and the Third Person of the 



i7 



Godhead as her Spouse, would preserve her from ever being the enemy of God 
by sin, is conformable to the simplest dictates of reason. But what can be more 
reasonable than that the Second Person of the Triune God and her Creator, 
would consider the sublime dignity decreed for her, to be his venerable, loved 
and loving, august, and sacred mother, that he would behold her with an infi- 
nite complacency, and that he would fit her for that dignity. Docs not the Im- 
maculate Conception add new lustre to the Redemption, showing that the mer- 
its of the God - man precluded the possibility of the Mother He made for Him- 
self ever being under the dominion of Satan. As Mother of God, her Immacu- 
late Conception was not the on!} 7 general law suspended in her favor, for we can 
know of no more extraordinary suspension of natural laws than that she should 
be a mother and a virgin at the same time. Mother of God, is it not the hope, 
the crown, the reconciliation of our race, and the glory, and the just pride, and 
are not the virtues with which she was adorned the immaculate pattern for 
womanhood? Does not reason repel the thought that she who was to be the 
living Temple of God Incarnate would first become the abode of sin and child of 
wrath — is not such a supposition contrary to reason? Is it even common sense 
to say that the Second Person of the Godhead that is the source of all holiness. 
took His human nature from a corrupt source; that He allowed the Temple in 
which He remained for nine months to have been under the dominion of the 
Devil? To admit any of these is to shock reason and common sense; in even 
its most natural sense, to suppose them is the summit of unreason. 

This article is already too long — longer than we intended — but to be plain 
and intelligent we could not well shorten it. Like all the superficial and very 
religiously ignorant and nihilistic amongst the sects, he puts about the entire 
Christian doctrine into a dozen printed lines, "worship," "idolatry," "tradi- 
tion," "transubstutiation," and thus shows that the whole existence of the sects 
depends upon bare assertions, founded only on "gush" and contrary to everj' 
fact. In far shorter articles and in other issues, we will, in all charity, vouch- 
safe to him some badly needed instruction upon them — including Bible — olatry 
— that we hope may enlighten and last him during the rest of his days. 



[From the Catholic, June 25th.] 

Miss Clkveland, by being a sister of the President, is just now receiving an 

amount of notice that she is far from deserving. She has scribbled off some 

most silly misrepresentations of "Monasticism." and a glance at the quotations 

published will convince any intelligent citizen that she knows just as much 



i8 



about the subject as our Independence Coffey-cup knows about the Christian 
doctrine— absolutely nothing. Because she is a sister to President Cleveland 
does not give her either knowledge or good taste, nor does it detract from his 
political fitness. 



From the Catholic, June 25th. 

We would fain call the attention of our Coffey-colored Christian friend at 
Independence to the following passage from a sermon preached on the feast of 
the "Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary," by Herbert de Losigna, the first 
Christian Bishop of Norwich, England, in the eleventh century. He will find 
it both in the recent widely published letter of Rev. Frederick George Lee, D. 
D., Protestant Vicar of "All Saints," Lambeth, England, and in the "Life and 
Letters of Herbert de Losequa," by the Protestant Dean and Protestant Pre- 
center of Norwich Cathedral, published in London in 1878. 

"To-day the Most Blessed Virgin Mary was taken up above the heavens, 
and in the presence of the Holy Apostles her body was placed in the sepulchre. 
She died, but a body of such excellent dignity could not (as Blessed Gregory 
saith) long be held in the bonds of death. For it was impossible that the flesh 
should be corrupted by a long death of which the Word was made flesh and 
dwelt among us. For if at the Lord's resurrection many bodies of the saints 
that slept, arose, how could that flesh not rise again which gave birth to the 
Author of life Himself? With a full and undoubting fahh, believe ye, my 
brethren, that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, made important both in body and 
soul, sitteth at the right hand of God, with her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, be- 
ing the mother of penitents, and the most effectual intercessor for our sins with her 
most gracious Son.'" 

This was the language and this was the belief of all Christendom and all 
England 800 years ago, and they could not then even dream that any other doc- 
trine could ever be called "Christian." And to further instruct and endeavor 
to Christianize our pupil, we will give him the volume and page of the book to 
find it in, so that this prospective Catechumen of ours can have no delay — and 
less excuse if he does delay — in placing his finger upon it. It is in volume II, 
on pages 351 and 352. See, we give him Protestant authority, but the authority 
of educated men, and men who will not try to ignore known facts, no matter 
how ruthlessly the truth of these facts smashes up generations of instilled 
falsehood, ignorance and prejudice. The religious misinformation resulting 
from the apathy of the day is inexplicable, and it is solely and alone by the 



19 



failure of people to inform themselves upon the veriest and plainest historical 
facts that the sects exist in this free land. 



"Worship." 

[From the Weekly Catholic July 2d, 1885] 

Our Coffey-colored ''Christian" of the Romish type, comprised about the en- 
tire Christian doctrine into a dozen lines of type, which we suppose we must 
accept as the measure of his knowledge of it, but for his instruction we must 
take one subject at a time, and as he is so confused in his conceptions of "wor- 
ship" as distinguished from "adoration," a few words upon this subject will be 
appropriate, and we hope they will not be wasted upon him. As all English 
speaking persons at least ought to know, the term "worship" signifies different 
things as it is relatively applied. In religion there are two distinctively differ- 
ent kinds of worship. There is the superior, the supreme worship paid only to 
God, and properly called adoration ; it is the highest kind of worship ; this is 
applied only to God ; it is the highest degree, and it is due to God, and to God 
alone. The worship paid to creatures is entirely different trom this adoration ; 
it is an inferior worship. Catholics believe that the beautified Angels and 
Saints reigning with God in heaven ought to be honored, and the scriptures 
teach us that they ought to be invoked, and every line of Church history and 
the practice of every day of her existence proves that they always have been in- 
voked ; but that worship is infinitely short of the adoration paid to God, and to 
Him alone. But as we said before, any one pretending to at all understand the 
English language, ought to know this, as by both English law and custom 
"worship" is paid to even mere public positions and persons. This inferior 
worship applied to creatures is veneration for worthy qualities, and is "wor- 
ship" in that sense — and this worship is such common sense that English, 
Scotch and Irish municipal officers are by both law and usage entitled to it, and 
our Catechumen could have found from any properly instructed person that the 
proper address for the mayor of a city in the British Islands is "Your Worship." 
The European calls the municipal chief of a British city "Worshipful," yet his 
Coffey-colored scholarship pretends to confound this inferior "worship" with 
the adoration paid to God. We will not charge him a cent for the badly needed 
instruction in his mother tongue that we are vouchsafing to him. 

Is it not strange that in referring to any subject except the doctrines of the 
Catholic Church, those bigots would never attempt to confound these two en- 



20 



tirely different significations and meanings of a well known relative term? Is 
it common honesty to pretend to confound these entirely different meanings 
when referring to any Catholic practices, and at the very same moment ac- 
knowledge their entire difference in all other things? Is it not. And as a re- 
sult of this dishonesty of intention the fact is fast becoming notorious that 
whatever you hear a Coffey-colored bigot say is Catholic doctrine, you can nine 
times out of ten set down as being falacies that the Catholic Church abhors ; 
and whatever such a dishonestly unreasoning bigot tells you the Catholic 
Church has done, you may as safely set down in nine cases out of ten to be near 
about the very thing she has already hindered. One of the peculiarities of such 
mental and "religious" curiosities is, that the very name of "Catholic" acts up- 
on some undiscovered agency of evil in them pretty much as a red cloth acts 
upon the bovine species; they lose control of their natural and better parts. 
They never lose their common sense until dealing with the Catholic Church, 
and they are then never able to keep it. This man would not be found mixing 
such entirely different terms and acts in any other circumstances of life. To the 
outsider such an entire and so plain a course of error is unaccountable, and yet 
it is somewhat — although not altogether — accountable when we recollect that 
until the dawn of this century, for the past three hundred years they have been 
compelled by the most tyrannical enactments in all English speaking countries 
to not only receive malicious falsehoods, and an erroneous, mutilated and eor- 
rupted mistranslation of the scriptures as "the bible," but any attempt to re- 
fute tlmse errors and corruptions, and the ignorance instilled from these false- 
hoods into the generations before the present, was during two centuries a 
"crime" punishable with imprisonment, banishment to death, according to how 
steadfastly you would maintain the truth. The tyranny that has enforced the 
teaching of error and falsehood in English speaking lands is what has caused 
the religious ignorance and consequent bigotry now seen in the Coffey-colored 
amongst the sects. This is the key to such dishonest nonsense as confounding 
two such entirely differently different terms, "worship" with "adoration." 



[From the Weekly Catholic, July 9th, 1885.] 

As we have shown our Coffey-colored catechumen that reason and common 
sjnse teaches that the Mother of God must have been always free from all sin — 
which is the sum of "immaculate" — to fit her for the place she occupies, and 
that this has been the teaching of all ages of the Christian Church ; and having 
shown him the strange and inexcusable shortcomings of his schoolmaster in 



21 



never having taught him the meaning of the plain English term "worship," we 
will follow up this charitable attempt at his instruction by chasing away his 
strange hallucination about Catholic "idolatry," a curious fiction that can only 
find lodgment in a mind either thoroughly ignorant of* the subject before it, or 
thoroughly malicious in its prejudice. Men of greater ingenuity than he, and 
of some learning, have in their desperation in their attempts to bolster up the 
illogical fallacies of the sects, reiterated this stale and most senseless calumny, 
but they have generally done so with the hope that their slanders would be 
revered up by their bold assumptions and glaring sophistry. 

Now, in the first place, all Catholics indignantly repel the stupid calumny, 
and in the face of this denial by every man, woman and child, does he give any 
proof for a charge that it is as outrageous as it is absurd ? Oh ! no. That is one 
thing that the Coffey-colored amongst the sects will never do — give any proof 
whatever for a single utterance they make, although their refusal to even at- 
tempt to prove their assertions against an universal denial, is a confession of 
judgment against themselves as it is a confession of the impossibility of finding 
any proof. In this, as in everything else, they give unsupported assertion 
against overwhelming testimony. But we will cheerfully pass over that confes- 
sion of judgment, and not taking any advantage of it, we will give them proof to 
the contrary, and although this threadbare falsehood has been repeated a thous- 
and times, hoping this errancy proceeds more from ignorance than malice, we 
will refute it again. 

Let us first take the decree of the Second last General Council, the Council 

of Trent, explicitly defining the doctrine of the Church upon this subject, as 
we make no statement with which we do not give authority and proof. The de- 
cree of the Council of Trent says: 

"The Holy Synod enjoins upon all bishops and others having the office and 
charge of teaching others, that, according to the usage of the Catholic Apostolic 
Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and accord- 
ing to the consent of the holy fathers, and decrees of sacred Councils, they 
should, in the first place, diligently instruct the faithful concerning the inter- 
cession and invocation of saints, the honor of relics, and the legitimate use of 
images, teaching them that the saints, reigning together with Christ, offer up 
their prayers to God for men. that it is good and useful supplicantly to invoke 
them, and to fly to their prayers, aid and assistance, in order to obtain favor 
from God through His Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, who is our only Redeemer 
and Savior.'' 

Here is the explicit and solemn decree of the highest authority of the Church 
disproving anything tendering upon "idolatry." To make such a charge in the 
face of this fact is simply atrocious. 

But let us come closer, even. Let any non-Catholic take the forms of invo- 



22 



cation found in Catholic prayer books, and lie will at once see the romancing 
misstatements of such men. To whom are addressed the prayers contained in 
Catholic prayer books, in which the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are commem- 
orated ? They are all addressed directly to God, asking the intercession of His 
Saints that these blessings may flow from God to men, and they all explicitly 
recognize the one and only mediation of Christ. The Litany of the Blessed 
Virgin ends : "That we to whom the incarnation of Christ, thy Son, has been 
made known by the message of an angel, may by His passion and cross be 
brought to the glory of His resurrection through the same Christ, our Lord, 
Amen." This is the ending of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Where 
is the idolatry in this? In that Litany, in every petition to the Mother of God. 
the words are "pray for us ;" but in every place in that Litany when God is 
addressed, the petition is "have mercy upon us." That Litany of the Blessed 
Virgin itself most clearly sets out the distinction between the creature and the 
Creator, although that creature is the immaculate Mother of the Second Person , 
of the Godhead made flesh, and is now enjoying the beatific vision and reign- 
ing with her own son and God in heaven, it sets the distinction, and forbids any 
infringement upon that distinction far more clearly than the sects ever can. Gf 
God, mercy is craved through the merits of the Redeemer of the friends of God 
now reigning with Him, their prayers to their and our God are asked, that their 
and our God may grant that mercy. The Catholic Church holds that it is profit- 
able to desire them to pray to God for us ; but not that they are authors of a 
pardon, grace, or Salvation, which can only come from God. All their power 
is dependent upon God's holy will, and independent of that they have no power. 
Every honor paid to the Angels and Saints, and particularly to the Mother of 

God, is paid to them because of the bountiful supernatural gifts imparted to 
them by God, and consequently every such honor must of its very necessity, 
redound to the greater honor and glory of God ; such honor so paid is adoration 
of God, because He is the only source and sole author of all the sanctity and 
holiness His saints, and to honor their sanctity must be to adore Him from 
whom that sanctity flows. In its words, in its very nature and essence, the 
prayers of the Church positively exclude and forbid anything bordering upon 
such a construction. Ought not these men be thoroughly ashamed of such 
atrocious falsehoods? With all this unequivocal denial of any such assump- 
tion ; with all this plain recognition of the sole mediatorship of Christ; with all 
this plain reliance for mercy upon God alone ; w T ith all the testimony to this -in 
General Councils, in every Catholic book, and in the prayers offered up daily 
and hourly from hundreds of millions of Catholics — even the schismatic 
Greeks — is it not a wonder that shame would not blister the tongues of such 

men ? 

If our friend Coffey wanted a position in the department of state, would he 



^3 



not only refuse the recommendation of public men of tried weight and influence, 
but also scorn a memorial from the President's cabinet? Yet, with the excep- 
tion that the Angels and 8a ; nts now enjoying the beatific vision and reigning 
with God have immeasurably more power and influence than any earthly cabi- 
net, this is about the exact position he pretends to take. Did Mr. Coffey ever 
read Catholic prayer books and study the Litanies of the Blessed Virgin and of 
the Saints so that he could intelligenty know what he was writing about? 
Charity urges us to say he never did, because otherwise his assertions would be- 
come unpardonable libels. And whilst of course we can blame no man for his 
ignorance of the subject, provided his ignorance be unavoidable, yet such men 
should at least attempt to instruct and inform themselves before being guilty 
of atrocious slanders. 



Tradition. 

[From the Weekly Catholic July 16th, 1885.] 

As w r e have taken Catechumen Coffey under a course of badly needed in- 
struction in both Christian doctrines and common sense — as well as in the 
meanings of some of the plainest terms in the English language — we will con- 
tinue a little further in this work of charity. After the absurd errors we have 
already dissipated in, his naturally fair intellect, but now clouded with enforced 
misinformation, the next in the order of his inexplicable Protestant blunders, is 
his pretense to reject tradition, made in the usual manner of baseless asser- 
tions, peculiar to the sects— we say pretense to reject it, for we cannot reject 
tradition — he does not reject tradition ; he even obeys tradition where it is in 
direct contradiction to and overrides the bible, and his hallucination on this 
point is what we will this week dispel. In fact we must sincerely say that of all 
the absurd fallacies of Protestantism probably none are so opposed to common 
sense and the facts in the case — certainly none are more opposed to both — than 
this statement of theirs that they do not accept the unwritten word of God con- 
tained in the tradition of the Church. 

And first, as to the authority of tradition, the unwritten word of God. Now 
as the sects are forever poking their mistranslations of a mutilated and corrupt- 
ed portion of the scriptures that they erroneously call the "bible" at everybody 
and everything, is it not strange that they do not read it to more advantage, as 
any ordinarily careful reading of it would keep them out of such a blundering 



24 



error as this. In our effort to instruct Mr. Coffey in his own mistranslated 
bible, the space allowed in a newspaper editorial is too small to admit of more 
than a cursory glance at the numerous places where the scriptures teach and 
enforce the authority of tradition. Even at the old testament we will stop a mo- 
ment ; and although a greater authority yet of the old law than even the old 
testament, is the fact that from the fall of Adam to the days of IVFoses there were 
no '"scriptures" and the Church of God was all that time governed solely by 
the unwritten law of tradition ; passing over all this we will onjy take him to 
Deuteronomy where he will find that the Jews were directed, xxii, 7, to "ask 
thy father, and he will declare to thee, thy elders, and they will tell thee," and 
if that be not his understanding of the English word ''tradition," then the 
school teacher must have shamefullv imposed upon his parents when pretend- 
ing to teach their hopeful the English language. 

But he may object that the old law has been fulfilled and replaced by the 

new law and he would prefer to be instructed in the new testament, so let us 
hasten to accommodate him. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, the Bishop of 
Ephesns, directs him, 2 Tim. 13, to "hold the form of sound words which thou 
hast heard from me." Here he places the "words" spoken to That Bishop on at 
least an equal footing with his writings. But not content with this, St. Paul 
tells him to hand these unwritten traditions of the Church down throiigh all 
generations, "And the things thou hast heard from me before many witnesses'" 
(in oral instruction) the same commend to faithful men, who shall be Jit to teach 
others also," 2 Tim. ii. 2. Here he not only orders these traditions of the Church 
to be handed down through all others to come, but the instructions necessitate 
a visible and infallible Church, or they are impossible. But to show that before 
any of the new testament was written, through oral teaching and necessary tra- 
dition, the Church was in as full operation as it is to-day, he directs the same 
Bishop, 2 Tim. iii. 14 "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, 
and which have been coynmitted to thee, knowing of whom thou hast learned." 
Here we have the testimony of St. Paul that the Christian doctrine had been 
"learned," and "committed" in all its fullness to the Christian Church before a 
scrap of the new testament was yet penned. He also tells the Corinthians, 1 
Cor. xi. 2, to "Keep my ordinances, as I delivered them to you " Where are 
these "ordinances" that he "delivered" before he wrote aline of scripture, and 
to which that very scripture refers as being of primal authority ? 

In any ordinary affair of life, where reason ruled, men would never go be- 
yond this. But it may be that he will want some scripture yet with the word 
"tradition" itself in it, as he may be just such a man as for contrariety would 
object to "two dozen" in an instrument hoping he might get out of paying 
'twenty-four." All right. St. Paul, in the second Epistle he wrote, — of course 
the Coffey-colored know that "Epistle" simpl}' means a letter — says to the 



25 



Thessalonians "Hold the traditions which you have learned, whether bywoid or 
by our epistle." 2 Thes. II, 15. Here we not only see that St. Paul places the un- 
written traditions on exactly the same footing with the written scripture, but 
also that those very epistles must be but based upon the unwritten "traditions" 
received and "learned" by him after his conversion. We hope that Mr. Coffey 
will not presume that St. Paul must have been very presumntious in having 
been so good a Catholic. But. St. Paid went further yet, and he has had all the 
Coffey-colored plainly in view, for he warned the Catholic delegations in Thesa- 
lonica, "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that you withdraw yo urs el v ks from every brother walking disorderly and not ac- 
cording to traditions which they have received of us, "2 Thes. iii. 6. Well, we 
are endeavoring to do as this directs we take St. Paul's advice and "withdraw" 
ourselves from their errors. St. Paul was "down on" "undenominational de- 
nominations," and if Mr. Coffey had lived in the first century he would have 
fought St. Paul, but although St. Paul enjoins us to "withdraw" from the Cof- 
fey-colored sects, it is nevertheless our duty to try to instruct and enlighten 
them. 

As all men can see, there is nothing here about "walking according to the 

scriptures," nor is there a line in all the scriptures to any such effect. Will Mr. 
Coffey please tell us in what place any portion of the scriptures tells him that 
all doctrine is found in them, or will he point where scripture even once says 
that the written word of God has any greater authority than the unwritten word 
of God? He cannot, for there is not a single line or place where such an asser- 
tion is made, and it is a curious comment upon his knowledge of the "bible" 
that we are compelled to teach it to him. 

There were no scriptures from the day that Adam was cast out of Eden un- 
til the time of Moses ; during that vast period of time the Church of God was 
governed entirely. by tradition alone. The Christian Catholic Church was clos- 
ing its first century, and had spread to the ends of the earth, and her full and 
perfect doctrines had been "learned," and were deposited, and were being hand- 
ed to others before the sciiptures of this new testament were written, and her 
doctrines during that time were supported by tradition only. Christ never said 
"Go write," or "Go give a book" that sets the world by the ears ; but "go teach 
all nations." In an ordinary affair of life, where reason rules, in anything 
where the Devil does not tempt and prompt to error, men would never think 
of going beyond this. It is not even pretended that there was one copy of the 
scriptures for every thousand Christians at any time during the first three hun- 
dred years, and even those are incompletely handed down to us. Some scrip- 
tures are known to have passed entirely out of existence, and not a scrap of 
even what has come down to us is in the handwriting of its author; nothing 
has come down to us except copies in a different tongue from that of the author, 



26 



and consequently these very copies of such scriptures as have survived must 
themselves be verified outside of themselves and by tradition. 

We have, as will be seen, confined ourselves to the "bible"' itself because 
the gush and sentimentality of the sects have driven them to substitute bible- 
on-the-brain for religion. But it is a late day for Mr. Coffey to learn that there 
are things which Protestants believe — are compelled to believe, and do believe 
and obey — that are not found any where in the scriptures, and are taken upon 
the sole authority of tradition. Most Protestants believe in the "Apostle's 
Creed;" this is not found in the scriptures, what authority have they for it ? 
Tradition. Most Protestants — all except the Baptists we believe — recognize in- 
fant baptism ; this is not found in the scriptures, what authority have they for 
it? Tradition. Mr. Coffey pretends that Protestants reject tradition, why in at 
least one subject of most vital importance they are governed by, believe in, and 
bow to a Roman Catholic "Command of the Church," when that command that 
they obey displaces one of the ten commandments of God and directly contra- 
venes all scriptures that touch upon it, and that is the observance of Sunday 
instead of ''the Sabbath of the Lord," which as everyone knows is Saturday. 
Not only does Mr. Coffey, and not only do all such of the sects obey tradition 
alone, but they meekly bow to a command of Catholic Church in direct opposi- 
tion to the scriptures every time they observe Sunday instead of Saturday "the 
Sabbath of the Lord," contrary to the command given by God himself on Mount 
Sinai, and never modified in any line of scriptures, but it is contrary to the 
practice of Christ himself whilst on earth, for He strictly kept Saturday "the 
Sabbath of the Lord." The man who thinks that he is not obeying, and be- 
lieving in, and governed by tradition and that tradition a command of the 
Catholic Church and yet keeps Sunday holy instead of Saturday, shows a blun- 
dering capacity of error that is hard to fully estimate. 

These doctrines were all preached by word of mouth, and "learned" from 
her to whom alone is given the commission to "go and teach all nations," and 
have been carefully handed down the ages by the Roman Catholic Church of 
God, from one Vicar of Christ to another, from one Bishop to the other, from 
Priest to Priest and from father to son to the present hour by the unwritten 
word of God, and will be handed down with the written word "to the consum- 
mation of the world" by the Catholic Church against which "the gates of Hell 
shall not prevail." 



27 



[From the Catholic July 23, 1885.] 
We are sorry that Catechuman Coffey must miss his instruction this week 
in Christian doctrine and common sense, but imperative business matters takes 
us away from our editorial class room ; however, as our charity exceeds our 
spare time we will gladly resume our efforts to enlighten him and all who like 
him blind themselves and sit in the shadow of reason. 



Plain "Bible" Facts. 

[From the Catholic Aug. 6th, 1885.] 

With "hell" knocked into "shoel," and with every page of the New Testa- 
ment changed in some manner or other in the "latest" revision, the inexperi- 
enced babbling of a child is wisdom compared with the babbling of Catechuman 
Coffey about a "basis of the Bible alone," and we think this is the next impor- 
tant subject upon which to give him some badly needed instruction. The 
Catholic Church is not only "based on the Bible" as far as it goes— for it must 
be borne in mind that the "Bible" is only the written portion of revealed truth, 
for the Sunday that Mr. Coffey keeps "holy" is not only not found in the 
"Bible," but is contrary to what is found in the "Bible" — but the Roman Catho- 
lic Church is herself the basis and the mother of the latter portion of the 
"Bible," for the New Testament was not written until years after she had 
preached and taught the whole and entire Christian doctrine throughout the 
world, and it was her children and Saints, the Apostles and their disciples who 
wrote the New Testament. But to the present received "Bible." Outside the 
fact that the revision in 1881 has branded the King James version of the "Bible" 
which is the only version Protestants have used or read or seen for the past 274 
years — as "irreconcilable with faithfulness ," and consequently on the Revisor's 
own testimony, calling down upon its printed pages and corrupt compilers, as 
an unfaithful and unblushing fraud, the maladiction of St. John in the Apo- 
calypse : "If any one shall add to these things, God shall add to him the 
plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words 
of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of 
life." Leaving this all aside, and even at this late hour accepting the revised 
version as an improvement — a long ways from a correct translation — as the body 
that called them handicapped them in such a manner that they were debarred 
both from using the most authentic manuscripts they could find, and from the 
aid of the ablest scholars — leaving this all aside — let us see on what grounds any 
revision of the "Bible," found in the world to-day, must rest its credibility. 



28 



The "Bible" that has come down to us is only a portion of the Scriptures, 
as books of the genuine Scriptures are known to be lost, so that if it be a sole 
'basis" of faith, some of that basis is gone, and further, reason teaches that 
mankind cannot know except by some infallible authority whether that portion 
they think they have, is genuine or not, for the originals were lost long ages 
ago, and the translations that have come to us are conflicting, and the many 
variations of, and counter claims for and against the portions that have come 
down to us preclude any possibility of unaided reason ever guaranteeing what 
is genuine or what is interpolated, or even forged. This is something that 
ought to be popularly known, and let us show some facts, for facts are stubborn 
things, and those terribly stubborn facts are very inconvenient for the sects. 

Not only is it known that portions of even the New Testament are no longer 
in existence, as the Book of Nathan, and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodi- 
ceans ; but there are said to be now thirty-five gospels in existence and not re- 
ceived by any present denomination, that at one time or another were believed 
by many to be Holy Scriptures. Nor is this all. Some of the books received 
by all to-day as Holy Scriptures and found in all "Bibles," were gravely doubt- 
ed by great doctors of the early Church. In the fourth century Eusebius called 
the Epistles of James, Jude, the Second Peter, the Apocalype, and the acts ot 
Paul "controverted or spurious." The Ebionites rejected the first two chapters 
of Matthew. The Marcionites would not receive the first two of Luke. The 
Armenians rejected the bloody sweat of our Lord. The Council of Laodicea, 
held in 380, does not mention the Apocalype. St. Jerome says the last twelve 
verses of Mark were wanting in nearly all the versions of his day. Origen, in the 
third century, gravely doubted the Second Epistle of Peter besides those of 
James and Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and, on the other hand, he as 
stoutly maintained the books known as Herrnas and Barnabas to be genuine 
Scriptures. There are verses in the Vulgate that are not in either the Hebrew 
or the Greek. The authorized manuscript of St. Matthew, that was in existence 
in the time of Origen, was known to have been corrupted by the heritics known 
as "Judaisers." From this any man can at once see the utter hopelessness of 
certainty without some infallible guide. 

But there is no room in a newspaper editorial to more than merely glance at 
the abounding but dry testimonies to this fact. The greatest authorities are on 
all sides of what should and what should not go to make up the genuine and 
true Scriptures, and it is of course an absolute impossibility to arrive at cer- 
tainty where the doctors disagree ; and without an infallible authority, we 
would like to ask any man of common sense if all attempts in that direction 
must not be futile? At the risk of a longer editorial than we like to write, let 
us examine this subject a little further. St. Augustine declared: "I would 
not believe in the Gospel unless compelled by the authority of the Catholic 



2 9 



Church." When St. Jerome translated the Scriptures in the fifth century, in 
correcting the version of the New Testament, lie wrote to Pope Damasus : "I 
have left many things untouched, lest my corrections might be deemed exces- 
sive.'' Luther in his book against Zuinglius, writes of these interminable diffi- 
culties : "If the world stands too long, it will be necessary, in order to preserve 
the unity of the faith, to recur to the decrees of the Councils, on account of the 
great diversity of translations and interpretations" — a pretty pack to talk of "unity 
of faith !'' They who were destroying all faith, but you see, even Luther had to 
acknowledge that an infallible authority was necessary, and that authority the 
Councils held under the Popes of the very Church the unfortunate man was 

then apostalising from. 

Modern criticism claims 80,000 variations in the existing manuscripts, and 

this is in regard to those that have been saved from destruction and are now in 
existence ; but each one of these Mss. is but a translation of the original, not 
one original scrap being in existence, and how can we know that the transla- 
tions, all made many centuries ago, and at various times and places, and some 
of them by men whose names even have not come down to us, are correct, that 
none of them are like the King James mis-translation which the late Protestant 
revisors have themselves branded as "irreconcilable with faithfulness." 

All the scriptures that man can expect to get is a substantially faithful 
translation of yet other and conflicting translations, for as we stated, none of the 
original writings have been in existence for ages, and how are we to know that 
we get a faithful version without an authority for it equal to the nature of the 
matter authorized ? How can we know what versions are even interpolated? 
What notes and remarks of the old copyists have gone from the margin into 
the body ? Here, as we see by Luther's own admission, at the very outset, the 
rebellion of three centuries ago, could at its best only do what it has now con- 
summated, make "confusion worse confounded" by rejecting all authority and 
maintaining that God left no guide on earth, the legitimate and only possible 

result of which is presented to us in the widespread and rapidly growing dis- 
trust and disbelief in the truth and inspiration of the Scriptures found issuing 
from the portals of eve^ Protestant church to-day. Protestantism gives the 
book to man and yet dares not guarantee its authenticity — no Protestant sect 
can ever even attempt to guarantee the authority of what is given as Scripture, 
all they can give is an "opinion" as to its genuineness ; even the revisors can- 
not do so ; all they dared do under the handicapping "rules" cut out for them, 
was to show that the King James version — yet the only version in the hands of 
Protestants — is not only incorrect, but mutilated and corrupt, they cannot — 
without the authority of the Catholic Church, no Protestant can guarantee the 
authenticity of the Bible. In reality, the}' received it three centuries ago be- 
cause the Catholic Church had held, used and authorized it for centuries before 



30 



Protestantism was dreamed of. Take away the Catholic Church and her Fathers 
and writers, and traditions — take away this sacred deposit of the Faith — and the 
Koran or the books of Persia or China would he of equal prominence and 
weight. These are incontravertable and plain facts 

This editorial is longer than we like, but we deem it necessary, as we believe 
the time has come for those things to be properly discussed, and we will there- 
fore add this closing paragraph. How r can you know that a piece of waiting is 
inspired ? There certainly is nothing in the form of a word or construction of a 
sentence to prove inspiration, and the Coffey-colored "Christian" ought to know 
that in any case there is not a scrap of those Scriptures in the handwriting of 
its author, nor is it certain, for instance, in even what language the Gospel of 
Matthew, or the Epistle to the Hebrews, was written. Let us exercise our rea- 
son and common sense. How, then, can man prove the inspiration of what is 
given to us as Scripture? Evidently by the same rule by which all other mat- 
ters are proven, by the testimony of witnesses, and such witnesses must be con- 
versant with the nature of the matter testified to, and to be proved ; the matter 
to be proved is divine because it is inspired, and the witness to prove it must be 
conversant with that nature — must be conversant with the Divine Nature. 
Here is at once a necessity in this case for a Divine — which is an Infallible — au- 
thority to decide upon what is and what is not inspired. But that leads to what 
ought — if we could only devote our time to editing — from the subject of another 
article, the absolute necessity the Bible creates for an infallible guide to its 
pages ; or in other words, that the subject matter and nature of the Bible ne- 
cessitates and consequently proves that an infallible guide to its pages must co- 
exist with it. 



3i 



CHAPTER III. 



THE SPIRIT OF ROMANISM. 

I have given the discussion in full, not with a view of taking 
up each point in its order and refuting the positions taken. This 
method, while it would be very direct and comparatively an easy 
task, would at the same time be very tedious and would require 
more time and labor than I can possibly spare from my other 
duties to devote to this work. The purpose of this full quota- 
tion has rather been that the reader may become fully aware of 
the spirit by which the writers are animated, as well as the weak- 
ness of the arguments on which they rely to bolster up the mass 
of corruption which they arrogantly claim to be the true church, 
through whose offices alone the grace of God is communicated 
to the souls of men. If these high claims are justified by facts, 
it is of vast importance that all men should be informed speed- 
ily, of a matter so fraught with interests of such infinite impor- 
tance to all ; but if the claims are false, then they point to the 
power making the claim, as being the power of Antichrist, of 
whom we find such terrible descriptions in God's word. 

Now we judge of the character of men not only by their 
deeds, but also by the spirit they display. This principle is as 
applicable to organizations as to individuals ; and it seems espe- 



32 



daily applicable, as a test, to what purports to be a system of 
religion, claiming on the one hand to be a spiritual system, con- 
taining the embodiment of the will of God, and on the other 
hand giving the only correct guide, to human conduct in this 
life, and to the joys of eternal life. "Beloved believe not every 
spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God." ist John, 
iv, I. "But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, 
glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom is not a 
wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, 
demoniacal. For where jealousy and faction are, there is con- 
fusion and every vile deed. But the wisdom that is from above 
is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of 
mercy and good fruits, without variance, without hypocrisy. 
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that 
make peace." James 1 1 1, 14 — 18. Such is the picture of the 
spirit of true Christianity as drawn by the pen of inspiration. 

With this beautiful picture let every candid reader attempt to 
draw a comparison, and let him decide for himself whether he 
does not, instead of similarity, find a most positive and revolting 
contrast between the spirit of popery as manifested by these 
modern defenders as well as in the delineations in the history of 
the past, and the spirit of Christianity as given in the above pas- 
sage and throughout the Scriptures, in which we are taught that 
"The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornica- 
tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, 
strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, 
drunkenness, revelings, and such like ; of which I forewarn you, 
even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the 
Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith- 
fulness, meekness, temperance ; against such there is no law. 



33 



And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with 
the passions and lusts thereof." Gal. v, 19 — 26. 

Now I aver that the works of the flesh as here set forth are 
accurately descriptive of the spirit of the church of Rome dur- 
ing the period of her greatest influence, say from the tenth to 
the sixteenth centuries. During this period her power was least 
restrained or modified by external influences, and hence we find 
here the truest manifestation of her real character and unre- 
strained spirit. 

For a sample of "fornication, uncleanness, and lascivious- 
ness," we have only to turn to Pope Alexander VI, the seducer 
of his own daughter and the patron of prostitutes, whose abom- 
inations are too vile to be described for the public eye. But 
perhaps it may be thought or even claimed that this case is ex- 
ceptional. But that such is not the case, we find that Pope Pius 
IV, about the year 1560, issued a bull directing the Inquisition 
to inquire into the prevalence of this crime which begins with 
these words : "Whereas, certain ecclesiastics, in the kingdom of 
Spain, and in the cities and dioceses thereof, having the cure of 
souls, or exercising such cure for others, or otherwise deputed 
to hear the confessions of penitents, have broken out into such 
heinous acts of iniquity, as to abuse the sacrament of penance, 
in the very act of hearing confessions, nor fearing to injure the 
same sacrament, and him who instituted it, our Lord God and 
savior Jesus Christ, by enticing and provoking, or trying to en- 
tice and provoke, females to lewd actions, at the very time when 
they were making their confessions," &c. This bull called out 
such a vast number of depositions, and threatened to bring the 
confessional and priesthood into such contempt and disgrace, 
that it was thought prudent to quash all prosecutions under this 
effort for the right, and consign to oblivion all these depositions. 



34 



(See Dowling's History of Popery, p. 336; also Gonsalv., 185 ; 
Llorente, 355; Limbroch, in; Edgar, 529; Da Costa 1, 117.) 
If any reader should doubt whether any organization calling it- 
self a church can possibly be held responsible for such a state 
of moral corruption let him examine any Roman Catholic book 
of devotions giving rules for the examination of conscience, and 
especially the instructions, given in Dens, or any similar work, 
to priests in conducting the confessions of females, and he will 
find a cesspool of filth which will astonish him ; — some of it so 
foul that neither friend nor foe would dare publish it in plain 
English in this country, because of the laws for the suppression 
of obscene literature. As the confessional is still in existence 
we need not think it strange that we so frequently hear of similar 
crimes, in our own day ; notwithstanding the "sacred secrecy" 
of the institution, and the persistent care with which all knowl- 
edge of such things is suppressed. (Read "Father" Chiniquy's 
"Priest, Woman and the confessional.") 

When we take into consideration the character of the ques- 
tions which "penitents" are required to answer under penalty of 
eternal damnation, and at the same time remember that the 
"father confessor" is often a vigorous man, full of amorous pas- 
sion, and wrestive under the vow of celibacy, to those who have 
observed the power of human passion, these results are not mat- 
ters of astonishment, although they may fill them with horror 
and indignation. Well may inspiration say "earthly, sensual, 
devilish." 

The next description in the works of the flesh is "Idolatry." 
This is found, as we shall see in succeeding chapters, in the wor- 
ship of Mary, of angels, saints, the host, relics, images, &c. 

"Sorcery" is displayed in the use of the "seven holy sacra- 
ments," by which alone, the faithful are taught that the grace of 



35 



God can be conveyed to sinners. Thus they are clothed with a 
"divine magic," culminating in the legerdemain of transmuting 
bread and wine into flesh, bones, sinews, nerves, blood, soul, and 
Divinity. 

There is also a great deal of sorcery in the so-called miracles, 
wrought by this "Wafer-God," by the saints, relics, images, pic- 
tures, holy water, crism, &c, &c. Nor is this sorcery and super- 
stition confined to the "dark ages." It is taught in all its enor- 
mity and deformity to-day, as witnesses the following item from 
the "Weekly Catholic" of July 16th, 1885 : 

"A sensation has been caused near Quebec by the report of a 
miraculous cure at the shrine of St. Anne de Beaupre. A young 
girl who was entirely helpless, having no use of her lower limbs, 
came with a party of eight hundred pilgrims from St. Pierre, 
near Montreal. She was carried to the altar after Mass. On 
her third attempt to rise she was able to walk without support. 
All the pilgrims were witnesses of the cure." This is conclu- 
sive, and needs no comment. 

Hastening on we next find "enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, 
factions, divisions, parties, envyings," and for ample proof of the 
qualities contained in this dark catalogue I have only to refer to 
the discussion given in the preceding chapter, which is strongly 
confirmed by the history of the church in the past. 

For proof of "drunkenness, revelings, and such like" I point 
to the known anti-temperance sentiments and teachings of a 
large majority of the Catholic clergy and church, to the large 
number of Catholic saloon-keepers, and the vast multitude of 
Catholic inebriates and criminals, and to the notorious Irish 
Catholic "wake." 

Now I submit, that where all these exist, there is but little 
room left for the fruits of the Spirit. That there are individuals 



36 



in the church of Rome who are true Christians, I would not for 
a moment deny ; but I hold that such are Christians in spite of 
the spirit of the church with which they are connected. Amidst 
all her errors the church of Rome does teach some truth ; and 
God may and sometimes does bless that truth to the salvation of 
the soul. Thus my charity for them is much broader than is 
theirs for protestants ; for they teach that there can be no salva- 
tion outside the pale of their church. 

Dark as is this portrayal of the spirit of popery, it contains 
thus far no allusion to the blackest characteristic of all, that is 
the spirit of intolerance and persecution. Why should I, in this 
unprovoked attack be made the object of such vile abuse and 
bitter vituperation as the foulest politician or even "sandlotter" 
would hardly dare to imitate ; simply because of this spirit of 
intolerance wrought up against me because forsooth, I dared to 
think for myself, and had the audacity to publish what I believe. 

It is the same spirit, which has ever been characteristic of 
popery and has led to the murder, assassination or martyrdom of 
thousands upon thousands of faithful men and women who have 
refused to bow in abject submission to her arbitrary dictates in 
matters of faith and conscience and worship of God. The gloomy 
history of these terrible scenes is too familiar to need repeating 
here. But thanks be to God, who rules among the nations of 
earth; the day of the "reign of terror" is past; the infamous In- 
quisition is forever dissolved; the sceptre of the pope has lost 
its power ; the thunder of his maledictions has no more terror, 
but is held in derision by an emancipated world. 



37 



CHAPTER I V . 



THE RULE OF FAITH. 

Before we proceed to the investigation of any other doctrine, 
it seems a logical necessity, that we introduce in this chapter an 
investigation of The Rule of Faith ; for until we have estab- 
lished a reliable standard, by which to test the truth or falsity of 
any doctrine under consideration, we shall never be able to arrive 
at any satisfactory conclusion. 

Now as we are agreed that God is the author of Christianity, 
we are likewise agreed that His word is the only standard by 
which all human doctrines, creeds, opinions and conduct must 
be judged. But when we attempt to define what we receive as 
God's word, then we find ourselves separated by a radical differ- 
ence. We here start upon two divergent ways which are found 
to separate farther and farther as we journey on. I, in common 
with all protestants, hold that since the completion of the canon 
of the holy scriptures, the word of God is contained only in the 
inspired scriptures ; while my opponent, in common with all Ro- 
man Catholics, contends that the word of God is contained in 
the scriptures and in the Traditions of the Church. 

This is the real point of divergence between us ; and to this 
can all our other differences be traced. Hence it is of the ut- 
most importance that this point be brought clearly before the 
mind. The catholic will readily admit that the written word and 



38 



tradition are of equal authority ; but if their writers use lan- 
guage with any clear perception of its meaning, or with any just 
discernment of its force, they certainly elevate tradition above 
the written word, and give it an authority which may not only 
go beyond the Bible, but may nullify it, by setting up doctrines 
or duties that are contrary to the teachings of the Bible on the 
same subject. 

Now when we find a scriptural basis for any doctrine or 
Christian duty with us it is final ; — but not so with the papist. 
He must turn away and ascertain whether tradition has substi- 
tuted for the original meaning something different, or whether it 
has suppressed or superceded it by something else ; and when 
he has reached a tradition, with him it is final, whether he has 
found any scripture or not, either for or against it. 

Let us proceed then to the discussion of the question; Does 
the Bible contain the whole of God's authoritative word ? I af- 
firm : John O' Flanagan, the editor of the Weekly Catholic, denies. 

But first, by way of definition, let me say that by the term 
Bible I do not mean the King James translation, nor the Can- 
terbury revision ; nor do I mean the Douay Bible, nor the Latin 
Vulgate, nor yet do I mean what is called the Received Greek 
Text. But I do mean the word of God as penned by the inspir- 
ed writers. 

That the above translations are all more or less inaccurate, 
and therefore fail, in some degree, to give the true sense of the 
original, is a truth of which scholars are well aware. Every 
person familiar with more than one language is fully conscious 
of the difficulty — I might say impossibility — of making a trans- 
lation from one language into another, without losing or chang- 
ing more or less the original thought. A Swede once said to 
me, in illustrating this fact, that he had frequently been chagrined 



39 



and disappointed in attempting to tell a Swede joke in English ; 
for, to his dismay, by the time he got it translated he found the 
"laugh" was all taken out of it. 

Now this difficulty is just as great in translating the word of 
God as it is in other translations ; and in addition to this, these 
translations have sometimes been made in the interests of certain 
theories ; and even if not intentionally perverted, they have been 
made by minds strongly biased by favorite theories, and such a 
mind unavoidably puts a construction upon language as favora- 
ble as possible to such theories. Now in view of these undenia- 
ble facts, it would be absurd folly to make any translation the 
ultimate standard, as Rome has done with the Latin Vulgate, 
which was first called the "Vulgate" in the fourth century hav- 
ing been revised at that time by Jerome from a former Latin ver- 
sion ; and his work has passed through several other revisions ; 
and although pronounced the infallible word of God, is known 
and acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic scholars, to be in 
many particulars at variance with the original.* Thus tradition, 
the ipse dixit of a council, sets aside the written word and substi- 
tutes for it a corrupt translation. As to the reliability of the man- 
uscripts of the original writings, my opponent presents quite an 
array of pedantry which he, no doubt, would be glad to have us 
accept as profound learning. But my answer to him is, "I pray 
thee have me excused." This stuff is made up partly of garbled 
and perverted truths, partly of arrogant assumptions, partly of 
weak sophistries, and partly of nan sequitnr deductions. Hence 
it only serves to show his lack of something reliable to present. 
But I cannot spend precious time in sifting this unsightly heap of 
rubbish, to show the amount of trash there is in it ; nor is such 



'•'•John O'Flanagan says, "There are verses in the Vulgate that are not in either 
the Hebrew or the Greek."— [See page 28.] 



40 



a work at all necessary as its utter fallacy and its totally unsatis- 
factory character is perfectly patent to every intelligent reader. 
In all this he ignores, either wilfully or ignorantly, all the light 
thrown upon this subject by the modern science of Philology, 
and by the remarkable discoveries made in the field of Archaeol- 
ogy. He also ignores the kind hand of an Omnipotent Provi- 
dence, by which these writings have been so wonderfully pre- 
served amid the wrecks of ages. The fact that the light of mod- 
ern research has come mostly from protestants ; or that Provi- 
dence has not always made the Roman Catholic Church His 
agent; is no just ground for rejecting either. The fact is that 

through these agencies we have as satisfactory knowledge of 
the exact words of the inspired writers, as we have of the exact 
words used by Wm. Shakespeare who wrote in our own lauguage 
only about two hundred and fifty years ago. 

Now that protestants are dependent upon the traditions and 
authority of the Roman Catholic Church for their knowledge 
and acceptance of the sacred writings, I most flatly deny. Pope- 
ry — by which term I mean that hierarchy which arrogates to it- 
self the title of "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" — dates no 
farther back than the year 606 A. D. At that time Pope Inno- 
cent III proclaimed himself "Universal Bishop," and thus sig- 
nalized himself as the first Roman bishop to usurp such dignity. 
His immediate predecessor Gregory, meptropolitan bishop of 
Rome, — whom they now call Pope Gregory the Great, — was so 
far from making such a claim that he wrote to the bishop of 

Constantinople, whose brain was addled by such ambition, that 
whoever assumed the title of "universal bishop" thereby proved 
himself to be the forerunner of Antichrist.* 



* That there may be no question as to my statement, I give his own words : "Ego 
fidenter dico, quod quisquis se univeralem Sacredotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in 
elatione sua, Antchristum prescurrit." — Greg. Magn. Epist. Lib. VI, epist. 30. 



4i 



Therefore, according to Gregory the Great, Innocent III. 
and his successors, are in the line of Antichrist, instead of in 
the true apostolical succession. * 

Every person at all familiar with the history of Popery, knows 
there can be no question as to the correctness of the date which 
I have given as the time when it took its rise. Preceding this 
there were developments and degeneracies which writers have 
called "Popery in Embryo ;" but its birth occurred in the year 
606. Since therefore the first six centuries of Christianity ante- 
dates the birth of Popery, her claim of a monopoly of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers, and all Christian writers of these centuries, is seen 
to be a most nonsensical farce. Protestants have undoubtedly 
just as good a right as Rome, to appeal to, and use these writ- 
ings ; nor do we hesitate to exercise that right. The difference 
between us in this matter is, that we take them simply for what 
they are worth ; while Rome attempts to clothe them with an 
unalterable authority. 

We receive the sacred writings on the basis of the external 
and the internal evidences by which they are supported ; and 
never once think of asking Rome to tell us what is true or what 
is spurious. We have learned long since to be very suspicious of 
anything that rests on a "catholic" basis. If the Roman church 
were blotted out of existence to-day, or had it sunk into nonen- 
tity a thousand years ago, we would be at no loss whatever for 
evidence of the genuineness of the scriptures. About the strong- 
est evidence she gives of the truth of inspiration is the literal- 
ness with which she works out the fulfilment of the prophecies 
concerning "The Man of Sin," the "Great Whore" of Babylon, 
and all that class of predictions. At the same time her abomi- 
nations and false doctrines furnish infidels with their severest 
weapons to wield against the Bible. 



42 



My belligerent antagonist says the autographs of the inspir- 
ed writers were hopelessly lost, long ages ago. I grant it ; but 
what of it ? God concealed the grave of Moses, and the Jews 
were spared from the sin of idolatrous worship of that grave. 
He also concealed the date of the day on which Jesus was born ; 
and had it not been for the unauthorized decree of an unauthor- 
ized council the world might have been spared the sight of the 
idolatrous worship of Christmas. And well may John O'Flana- 
gan consider it a great mercy of a kind Providence that no such 
autographs can be found ; for if one should be brought to light, 
especially if it was an autograph of "Saint Peter," I should ex- 
pect to find him immediately on his knees before it. 

Now my doctrine is — and I conform my practice to it — that 
the materials used in the production of books of inspiration, 
whether the autograph manuscripts of the writers, or printed 
Bibles, are no more sacred than any other materials. They can 
be called holy only in the sense that the teachings they contain 
are God's holy truths. But even these doctrines and truths must 
not be worshipped. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
him only shalt thou serve." 

Talk about protestant "Bible-olatry !" If anybody worships 
the material Bible it must be those who hold that it is too holy 
to be placed in the unconsecrated hands of the laity. 



43 



CHAPTER V. 



RULE OF FAITH-Continued. 

The Weekly Catholic of July 16th, (see page 25) claims that 
"walking according to the scriptures" is nowhere enjoined, "nor 
is there a line in all the scriptures to any such effect," or "that 
all doctrine is contained in them." 

That I may not accuse the writer of insincerity, I will sup- 
pose him to be asking for instruction, and will briefly answer 
him by giving just a few of the many passages touching these 
points. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul," 
&c. Psalms xix, 7, and to end. "Thy word is a lamp unto my 
feet, and a light unto my path." Psalms cxix, 105, and the whole 
Psalm. Jesus said "Search the scriptures, for in them ye think 
ye have eternal life ; and they are they that testify of me." 
John v, 39. Jesus' custom was to go into the synagogue on the 
Sabbath day and stand up to read. Luke iv, 16. When Paul 
preached to Jews he "reasoned with them out of the scriptures." 
Acts xvii, 2. To Timothy he says, "From a child thou hast 
known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise 
unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness ; that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 



44 



good works." 2d Tim. 1 1 1, 15, 16, 17. But why add more ? "If 
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- 
suaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke xvi, 31. 

Before leaving the discussion of the authority of the Scrip- 
tures, I want to say, that in arguing that all the authoritative 
word of God we have, in this day, is contained in the Bible, I 
would not allow myself to be interpreted as saying everything 
in the Bible is the word of God. Parts of the Bible are made 
up of the words of Satan, parts, of the sayings and doings of 
wicked men, and still other parts are simply historical narratives 
of passing events. Inspiration is not responsible for any senti- 
ments or declarations found in such parts ; it is only responsible 
for the correctness of the accounts. It is very foolish to quote 
the words of the Devil, or of wicked men as scripture, binding 
upon us. If it is asked then, what parts are we to believe and 
accept as the word of God ? my answer is ; all Divine teach- 
ings, precepts, and commands are authoritative. Also all these, 
when given to us by men divinely inspired, are to be accepted, 
as is also the example of such men acting under Divine guid- 
ance. We are justified also in receiving all plain and necessary 
inferences and deductions from such words and such examples ; 
but this last must be used with great caution, because of the 
strong tendency of human nature to go wrong. 

Our conclusion then is that whatever the written word of 
God teaches is to be believed, and whatever it enjoins must be 
obeyed ; and that it is a perfect standard by which to decide all 
such questions ; and that as to its meaning, "God is his own in- 
terpreter, he will make it plain." "The best commentary on the 
Bible, is the Bible itself," illuminated by the Holy Spirit. 

My reason for giving this question so much space is the fact 
of its great importance. I could not do less, would gladly do 



45 



more, to emphasize its importance, had I time and space. But 
as my opponent sets up another, different and conflicting stand- 
ard it is necessary that I devote sometime to its investigation. 

Following the preceding method the question may be stated 
fairly thus : "Are the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church 
binding upon Christians, as containing the word of God ?" John 
O'Flanagan affirms ; I deny. 

As the burden of proof always rests on the affirmative, my 
first work is to refute any arguments he may have produced in 
favor of his position. My greatest difficulty in doing this is to 
gather from his rambling statements a clear understanding of 
what he conceives to constitute the proofs. 

First, I notice he talks about inability to know what is in- 
spired, or to know what it means after it is received, and of its 
incompleteness and inadequacy to meet the demands of the case, 
and also of the Bible creating a necessity for an infallible stand- 
ard of truth outside of itself, and of the Catholic Church being- 
such a standard, and seems to endeavor, by adopting the a priori 
process of reasoning, to establish the infallibility of the church 
and hence the authority of her traditions. This argument when 
reduced to form will amount to about this : By its lack of evi- 
dence of inspiration, by its obscure meaning, and by its incom- 
pleteness, the Bible necessitates an infallible guide to its pages. 

The Roman Catholic Church is such an infallible guide, 

Therefore, the Traditions of the Church are authoritative. 

Now I deny both the major and the minor premise in this 
sylogism ; and if I sustain my denial, the conclusion falls. Now 
as to the major premise, I have already shown, in this and the 
former chapter that the Bible furnishes a perfect standard by 
which to test all doctrines, opinions and human conduct, and I 
can here only call attention to the bearing of this conclusion on 



4 6 



these statements. I need only to say further, that the scriptures 
nowhere give the most distant intimation of the establishment 
or necessity of such human tribunal, having jurisdiction of the 
word of God ; while a plain declaration to that effect, would 
have been absolutely necessary if God had designed to establish 
such tribunal. Nor does the Weekly Catholic attempt to bring 
any proof to bear upon this point save its own ipse dixit. This 
premise therefore falls. 

To any one familiar with the history of the Church of Rome, 
the minor premise is too ridiculous to deserve serious consider- 
ation. Talk about infallibility in the midst of such moral cor- 
ruption and filthy abomination as I have already quoted from 
Baronius ! Then add to this the testimony of impartial history 
as to her character as displayed in intolerance, persecution, blood- 
shed, rapine, war, devastation and ruin, visited upon all those 
who hesitated to meekly submit to the galling yoke of her crush- 
ing tyranny, and the mind involuntarily recoils from all thought 
of her infallibility. 

But laying this all aside and appealing directly to abstract 
reason, we must see that that which is infallible must of necessity 
be unchangeable. But the Church of Rome has not been un- 
changeable ; hence she is not infallible. One council has declar- 
ed one doctrine, another has declared the opposite ; one pope 
has set up one creed, another has demolished it and substituted 
another; one age has denounced certain forms of worship, an- 
other has established them. At one time she dispenses govern- 
ments, dethrones monarchs, crowns and princes, wields vast ar- 
mies, drenches the earth with blood, and makes the world tremble 
with the voice of her power ; at another she concentrates her 
energies to beleaguer an obscure Baptist preacher quietly at work 
in his own field, and proposes to crush him with approbium and 



47 



slang, because she has no power to do more. Surely infallible 
Rome has fallen. Then major premise, minor premise and con- 
clusion, are all gone to the moles and the bats, among the ruins. 

The next attempt at argument in favor of the authority of 
tradition the editor calls an argument drawn from the "mis- 
translations of a mutilated and corrupted portion of the Scrip- 
tures that they erroneously call the bible." He then proceeds to 
quote different passages to the effect that under certain condi- 
tions the oral instruction of certain men were authoritative. 
This fact no one denies ; but let us ask, what are these condi- 
tions ? One condition was that every such teacher must be "call- 
ed of God" and sent to deliver such message. Another condi- 
tion was that he must be inspired. "Holy men of old spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Now it is certainly a 
queer specimen of logic, to argue that certain holy individuals 
were commissioned and inspired by the authority of God to de- 
liver to the people his word, before the canon of inspired scrip- 
tures was completed : — therefore, a vast organization of unholy 
men succeeding each other from age to age, uncommissioned, 
having neither Divine authority nor inspiration, — after the scrip- 
tures are completed, — are equally authorized to deliver the word 
of God, and their traditions must be received as of supreme au- 
thority, and implicitly obeyed. 

This certainly is not very brilliant logic ; yet it is a fair pre- 
sentation of the dire extremity, to which his desperate cause 
has reduced the logical (?) editor, who so frequently appeals to 
"reason" and "common sense," and "plain facts," and "learning;" 
whose pen also bandies about such expressions as "ignorant," 
"sophistry," "bold assumptions," "illogical fallacies," &c. 

With regard to his frequent use of these and many other of- 
fensive terms and sarcastic personalities, I say to him as I said 



4 8 



to the "Child of Mary" (for whom he expresses such unbounded 
admiration, notwithstanding the fact that she unsexed herself by 
her coarse language), truly I have no ambition to rival him in 
these things. Could I outstrip him here, I should only show my- 
self to be the worse blackguard. There is no argument in such ; 
but strong evidence of lack of argument. "Belligerents do not 
throw mud, when they can get stones." Neither have I in my 
heart the least personal enmity towards him. This whole con- 
troversy has not ruffled my feelings in the least. 



CHAPTER VI. 



RULE OF FAITH-Continued. 

The bold champion of tradition next attempts to convict me 
and all protestants of obeying tradition, even "a Roman Catholic 
command of the Church, when that command that they obey 
displaces one of the Ten Commandments of God and directly 
contravenes all scriptures that touch upon it ;" but in this he 
makes, as usual, a signal failure. 

His first point is "The Apostles' Creed ; this is not found in 
the Scriptures ; what authority have they for it ? Tradition." I 



49 



grant it ; but what has this to do with me ? I do not believe in 
it. For the very reason he gives, I reject it ; and for the further 
reason that while some of its doctrines are true, others of them 
are utterly false. A mixture of error with truth is always dan- 
gerous ; we need "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth." 

Again, "Most Protestants — all except the Baptists we be- 
lieve — recognize infant baptism ; this is not found in the scrip- 
tures, — what authority have they for it ? Tradition." Again I 
admit it. But it does not touch me at all ; for I am a Baptist, 
and, like my people for ages past, I regard it as a sad perversion 
of God's ordinance, and the very "Pillar of Popery." If the or- 
dinance of baptism had never been perverted, either in form or 
design, it would have continued to be the beautiful badge of 
public profession, by which Christians might be distinguished 
from the world. 

The third point — and last in this line — he attempts to make 
is that, in their observance of Sunday, protestants meekly bow 
to a mandate of the Catholic church. 

This claim I also emphatically deny ; and in support of such 
denial I ask the reader's careful attention to the following reas- 
ons, which I will give in as condensed a form as possible : 

My first answer is that the Jewish Sabbath — seventh day — 
has not been changed into the Christian Sabbath, or First-day 
Sabbath. My position on this may not be considered, by many 
protestants, as orthodox ; but I make no claim of authority to 
speak ex cathedra ; and nobody is responsible for my views but 
myself. I hold that the seventh-day Sabbath was a national insti- 
tution peculiar to the Jewish Theocracy. In all the history of 
the antedeluvian and patriarchal ages, extending from Adam to 
Moses, — a period of over 2,500 years according to the accepted 



5o 



chronology — there is no allusion to the weekly sabbath, nor any 
intimation that the devout men who lived during that time, such 
as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisadeck, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 
ever kept such a Sabbath. The declaration in the second chap- 
ter of Genesis with reference to God's blessing and sanctifying 
the seventh-day gives no hint that the Sabbath was established 
at that time ; or that men were required to keep it holy. The 
idea of man's duty does not enter at all into the passage ; but it 
is a record of God's doings. Hence I understand that in sancti- 
fying the day, God set it apart for a holy use, in his purpose for 
the future, and that the time for accomplishing this purpose came 
at the giving of the manna, in the wilderness when he gave the 
people also the sabbath, by his servant Moses. Now I submit 
that my interpretation has the advantage of agreeing / precisely 
with the facts of sacred history bearing upon the subject; for 
we are told plainly that the Lord "made known his holy sabbath 
by the hand of his servant Moses." — Neh. ix, 14. 

It may be objected that the word "Remember" used in the 
command in the decalogue implies the previous existence of the 
sabbath. To this objection there are two answers, either one of 
which is fully sufficient to set aside the objection. First, the 
sabbath was given with the manna, before the giving of the Ten 
Commandments ; and second, the word remember, not only sig- 
nifies to cal to mind again, but also to keep constantly in mind, 
as "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." 

Now that it was purely a Jewish institution is clearly proved 
by the reason assigned for giving the command, Deut. v, 15, 
"Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and 
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty 
hand and by a stretched out arm : therefore the Lord thy God 
commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." Thus the sabbath 



5i 



rest was commemorative of their rest from Egyptian bondage ; 
hence its obligations were peculiar to that nation who had suf- 
fered such bondage. That it belongs to the civil code of that 
nation is clear from the fact of the death penalty for its violation 
being attached to it. From the minute details of the instructions 
laid down to guide them in its observance, we learn that it par- 
takes of the character of the ceremonial law. 

I have just stated above that the sabbath was commemora- 
tive of rest from Egyptian bondage ; and from the fourth chap- 
ter of Hebrews we learn that it was prophetic of rest from the 
worse bondage of sin, which rest is secured through faith in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. To the same effect we are told in Col. n, 17, 
that holy days, new moons and sabbaths "are a shadow of things 
to come, but the body (substance) is of Christ." He here places 
the sabbath in the category of the hand writing of ordinances 
which Christ has blotted out, and taken away, "nailing it to the 
cross." From these considerations I conclude that the Jewish 
sabbath, having fufilled its mission, was abolished when Jesus 
was crucified and the vail of the temple was rent in twain. 

On the first day of the week following the abolition of the 
Jewish sabbath, the Lord arose from the dead, and soon sent his 
disciples forth "to preach deliverance to the captives, and recov- 
ering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruis- 
ed." He thus inaugurated a new institution, belonging to a new 
dispensation. Now the two covenants, — the one ritual, ceremo- 
nial, literal, the other spiritual — bear the relation to each other of 
type and antitype ; and the Jewish sabbath as a type is fulfilled 
in the Christian sabbath, its antitype. The one was literal, the 
other is spiritual. The one commemorated deliverance from lit- 
eral bondage ; the other from spiritual bondage ; the one proph- 
esied of spiritual freedom in this life, the other of heavenly free- 



52 



dom in the life to come. The one was observed by literal cere- 
monies, the other by spiritual worship. 

The Lord himself having thus consecrated the first day of 
the week, still further honored it by appearing to his disciples at 
least twice on that day of the week, and then by giving the Holy 
Spirit on the day of Pentacost, which also came on the first day 
of the week. * 

From this time forth the inspired apostles and all Christians 
observed the Lord's Day as a day of rest and religious worship. 
Thus the new spiritual institution rests upon the Savior's own 
example, and that of his inspired apostles ; and having found a 
complete scriptural basis, we have no need of papal decrees. 

Since the boastful editor parades this argument with such a 
confident flourish of words let me recapitulate and see how the 
matter now stands. He plants himself upon the assumption that 
the sabbath has been changed from Saturday to Sunday. I have 
proved from God's word that no such change ever took place. 
But if he should seek to change his tactics and say that the 
new sabbath was established by the authority of the Catholic 
church : I have shown that its origin is found six hundred years 
too early to rest on papal authority. f If he should change 



* Note. — In saying that by his resurrection Christ consecrated the first day. I 
would not have the reader to understand that I hold that he santified it in the sense of 
giving to it an intrinsic holiness, for I do not regard temporal things as capable of 
partaking of essential holiness, which is a characteristic of Divinity. To illustrate : — 
T he signing of the Declaration of Independence on the Fourth of July rendered that 
day, in the heart of the American, sacred to the commemoration of our deliverance 
from British dominion ; so Christ's resurrection rendered the first day of the week sa- 
cred to his worship, and the commemoration of our deliverance from* the dominion of 
sin. The Christian may esteem "every day alike." He is not his own, his body, his 
mind, his soul, his possessions, his time — every day— all belong to the Lord. 

f In the "Catholic Scriptural Catechism, by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Milner," I find the 
following question and answer : 

Q. What traditions of the Christian religion existed before the several Books of 
the New Testament were promulgated or written ? 

A. The substitution of the Sunday as a Holy-Day, for the Sabbath, or Saturday ; 
the abrogation of the necessity of circumcision, and, generally, the whole system of 
the Christian religion.'' 

This places the whole matter in the days of inspired oral teaching, just as I've done. 



53 



again and claim that its authority is ancient tradition, handed 
down by the Catholic church : I have shown that it stands upon 
a scriptural basis, and hence that tradition had nothing to do 
with it ; neither had the Catholic church anything to do with it. 

My accuser having signally failed, in case of each of his 
three specifications, to sustain his allegations, the bombastic 
charge, that I meekly bow to the command of Rome, falls to the 
ground completely collapsed. 

Having now gone hastily through the investigation, so briefly 
outlined in the three last chapters, I stand more firmly convinced 
than ever of the all-sufficiency of the inspired Scriptures as a 
"Rule of Faith ;" and as we proceed in this work of investiga- 
ting the corrupt doctrines and practices evolved by tradition, we 
shall see abundant reasons for adhering strictly to this great 
principle of Protestantism. 

Whenever the church allows herself to be beguiled into the 
adoption or even imitation of any of the corruptions of Popery, 
she looses her power, just like ancient Israel when falling into 
the idolatry of the surrounding nations. 



54 



CHAPTER VII. 



THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 

While in the foregoing controversy quoted from the " Weekly 
Catholic' there is no very positive statement of its indorsement 
of the Catholic doctrine of the "seven sacraments," we may 
clearly infer from it, not only the indorsement of thisdoctrine, but 
of all things else taught and approved by the "infallible church." 
That this inference does no injustice to that paper, is proved by 
the following statement taken from the issue of August 27th. 
"Sanctifying grace can only come through the seven sacraments 
that Jesus Christ instituted, the Catholic church is the only de- 
pository of these Sacraments and this sanctifying grace, and 
through these Sacraments she is the only and the sole power on 
earth that can give its members power to heed this distinction, to 
make good use, and shun every misuse of every natural product 
and human effort." 

That the reader may have a fair statement of the doctrine of 
the church, I quote from "The most Reverend Doctor James 
Butler's Catechism," — New York, Cincinnati, and St. Louis ; 
Benziger Brothers, Printers to the Holy Apostolic Soc." On 
pages 74, 75 and 76, we find 

LESSON XXIV. 

ON THE SACRAMENTS, AND ON BAPTISM. 

Q. By what other means, besides prayer, can we obtain the 
grace of God ? 

A. By the sacraments, the most powerful of all means. 



55 



Q. What is a sacrament ? 

A. A visible, that is, an outward sign or action, instituted 
by Christ, to give grace. 

Q. Whence have the sacraments the power of giving grace ? 

A. From the merits of Christ, which they apply to our 
souls. Rom. vi, 3 ; v. 9. 

Q. Why are so many ceremonies used in the administation 
of the sacraments ? 

A. To excite devotion and reverence for them ; and to sig- 
nify and explain their effects. 

Q. How many sacraments are there ? 

A. Seven : Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Ex- 
treme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Council of Trent, 
S S. 7 c, 1. 

Q. What is Baptism ? 

A. A sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes 
us Christians and children of God, and heirs to the kingdom of 
Heaven. 

Q. Does baptism also remit the actual sins committed be- 
fore it? 

A. Yes, and all the punishment due to them. 

Q. Is baptism necessary to salvation ? 

A. Yes ; without it one cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God. John m, 5. 

Q. Who are appointed by Christ to give baptism ? 

A. The pastors of his church ; but in case of necessity, any 
layman or woman can give it. 

Q. How is baptism given ? 

A. By pouring water on the head of the person to be bap- 
tized ; saying at the same time, / baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Matt, xxvin, 19. 



56 



Q. What did we promise in baptism ? 

A. To renounce the devil, with all his works and pomps." 

Then after various lessons on the other sacraments we find 
this, on page 93 : 

"Q. Which sacraments are most necessary to us?" and on 
page 94 : 

"A. Baptism and penance. 

Q. Why did Christ institute the sacraments ? 

A. For the sanctification of our souls, and to prepare us 
for a happy and glorious resurrection." 

In this doctrine of sacramental grace we see a striking in- 
stance in which tradition has set aside the simple and positive 
teachings of the scriptures, and substituted in their stead the 
most absurd and corrupt human inventions ; — absurd, because 
they are contrary to common sense and Divine inspiration ; — 
corrupt, because they have led to the most wicked practices. 
They savor far more of the abominations of ancient Roman 
paganism, than of true Christianity. Hence the church that 
holds them is a Romish church ; and I regard the title as pecu- 
liarly appropriate. 

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, coupled with the 
practice of infant baptism and the sacrament of confirmation, has 
filled the church with unregenerate men. Men whose hearts are 
"deceiptful above all things, and desperately wicked." These, 
for the gratification of their sinful lusts, have invented all manner 
of excuses for their vile crimes, and devised many cloaks to cover 
up gross iniquities. Adding to the infamous doctrine of pardon 
of sin through penance, the hideous doctrine of indulgences, 
and that of purgatory, they have gratified their avaricious covet- 
ousness, by extorting, from their deluded dupes, vast sums of 
money with which to carry forward their wicked schemes, and 



57 



augment their crushing power over their spiritual slaves. Fur- 
thermore, through the same influence, they have induced men to 
perpetrate the most revolting crimes that have ever blackened 
the pages of the world's history, and as a reward for these crimes 
have promised indulgences for a time or for life, and in the world 
to come eternal salvation. My limits will not allow me to go 
into the details of the countless proofs of this assertion; but 
they are familiar to every reader of the history of the dark ages. 
I simply refer to the crusade against the Albigenses, the 
massacre on St. Bartholomew's day, and the terrible Inquisition 
of Spain, as illustrations. I might continue to point out the evils 
connected with each of these sacraments, but this must suffice 
for the present. 

With regard to this whole subject, I most emphatically deny 
the existence of any such sacraments in true Christianity. Christ 
taught his followers to observe only two external ordinances ; 
and these rites are by no means sacraments as Rome defines that 
word. In fact I am always pained when I hear protestants apply 
this word to either of them. The Bible nowhere teaches that 
either Baptism or the Lord's Supper is a "means of grace," much 
less that it is a sacrament inevitably "applying the grace of God to 
the soul," or "conferring it upon the recipient." The simple 
teachings of the scriptures inform us that these ordinances are 
memorial in their design and symbolic in their nature. Baptism 
memorializes the burial and resurrection of our Lord, and sym- 
bolizes the believer's spiritual death to sin and resurrection to 
holiness. Romans vi. The Lord's Supper commemorates the 
Lord's death, and symbolizes the mangled body and shed blood 
of the Savior of sinners. 

Thus they harmonize perfectly with the precious doctrines of 
salvation by grace, with which the Bible so richly abounds, and 



58 



in which the truly pious have always taken so much comfort. 
There is no "ritualism" in Christianity. It is entirely foreign to 
the whole spirit of the New Dispensation. The "hand-writing 
of ordinances which was against us" and belonged to the old 
covenant, has been blotted out, by the death of our Savior, to 
which they all pointed forward, and in which they were all ful- 
filled and abolished. As His death abolished the old and ritual- 
istic dispensation, so His resurrection inaugurated the new and 
spiritual dispensation. 

Now any system that attempts to mingle Jewish rites, and 
Druidical festivals, and Roman polytheistic ceremonies, and 
heathenish idolatry in one conglomerate mass, and then seeks to 
engraft this amalgamation upon Christianity, most assuredly 
drives out all real Christianity, for it can never be made to as- 
similate with such incompatible and antagonistic elements as 
these. Yet this is just what the Romish Church has done ; there- 
fore, I conclude there is no real Christianity in the system. 

How striking the contrast when we turn from this unsightly 
picture and comtemplate the simplicity and the purity of that relig- 
ion which Jesus and his disciples practiced and inculcated, 
"Teaching us that denying ourselves all ungodliness and worldly 
lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this pres- 
ent world." "By grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not 
of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man 
should boast." "Abraham was justified by faith, and it was count- 
ed to him for righteousness." "For the just shall live by faith." 

In all this and much more of the scriptures we see the great 
Prostentant principle of Justification by Faith ; hence we wholly 
reject all this human and sinful device of "holy sacraments." 



59 



CHAPTER VIII. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

As John O'Flanagan charges that I give no proof for my as- 
sertions, and that "whatever such a dishonestly unreasoning big- 
ot tells you the Catholic church has done, you may as safely set 
down in nine cases out of ten to be near about the very thing 
she has already hindered," hoping by such unscrupulous denial 
to blunt the penetrating power of the truth, I will again quote 
from Butler's Catechism, which is an acknowledged authority, 
whatever may be said of the " Weekly Catholic" — or by it, for that 
matter. This authority expounds the doctrines of the Catholic 
church on the present subject in this wise, page 78, Lesson xxvi. 

"ON THE BLESSED EUCHARIST." 

"Q. What is the blessed Eucharist? 

A. The body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, 
under the appearance of bread and wine. 

Q. What means the word Eucharist ? 

A. A special grace or gift of God ; and it means also a sol- 
emn act of thanksgiving to God for all his mercies. 

Q. What do you mean by the appearances of bread and wine? 

A. The taste, color, and form of bread and wine, which still 
remain, after the bread and wine are changed into the body and 
blood of Christ." 



6o 



Again on page 81 : 

"Q. What is the Mass? 

A. The sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which are 
really present under appearances of bread and wine ; and offered 
to God by the priest for the living and the dead." 

Again on pages 83 and 84 : 

"Q. How are we to be penetrated with a lively faith ? 

A. By firmly believing, that the Blessed Eucharist is Jesus 
Christ himself, true God and true man, his very flesh and blood, 
with his soul and divinity." 

I do not feel myself called on to enter into any extended ref- 
utation of a doctrine so contrary, to the spirit of Christianity, to 
the teachings of the scriptures, and to the natural senses. This 
work has been done over and over, again and again, from the 
days of the fifth century, — when Eutyches first conceived the 
wild vagaries, which required five or six centuries of degeneracy 
to develop them into the crude monster of Transubstantiation, — 
even down to the present age ; and whoever desires can easily 
find an abundance of literature on the subject. To write a his- 
tory of the bitter controversies that have attended it during its 
rise, development, progress and retroversions, in itself would re- 
quire a volume much larger than the entire present work. To 
produce such a work I have neither time nor inclination. Yet 
the terrible evils that are directly traceable to this degrading doc- 
trine, form so prominent a feature in the errors of Popery that I 
could not pass by them in silence. 

I will, therefore, briefly notice some of the. miserable attempts 
at arguments with which they strive to bolster up this strange 
superstition : 

Their first point is usually the words of Jesus, "This is my 
body," "this is my blood." These words they say must be taken 



6i 



literally ; hence the bread and wine must be changed into flesh 
and blood. Why must they be so construed ? Simply because 
Rome arbitrarily so commands ; for there is no such necessity 
found in the language. The verb "to be" means to represent, 
just as truly as it signifies to exist ; and we habitually so use it. 
Of a picture we say "This is General Grant." It is habitually so 
used in the scriptures, e.g., "I am the vine," "I am the door," 
"That rock was Christ," "The seven golden candlesticks are the 
seven churches," &c. But we are not left to conjecture in the 
matter, for after Jesus had used the words, which are said to 
produce the mysterious change, he speaks of the cup as "the 
fruit of the vine ; " it was not human blood then, but simply rep- 
resented that blood. Paul also speaks of "bread" after its conse- 
cration ; it was not flesh then, but only represented that flesh. 

The next plea is that the church has always so held ; but, as 
is so often the case, this assertion is in direct contradiction to 
real facts. As I have read history, during the first four centuries, 
the so-called "apostolic fathers" and other Christian writers in- 
variably speak, of the elements used in the Lord's Supper, as 
types, symbols, or emblems of His body and blood. I am well 
aware that papal writers have often tried to prove the contrary 
by garbled extracts and misconstructions ; but I am just as well 
aware that when the full testimony of any one of these writers 
is brought to bear it proves what I have stated above. More 
than this there are many writers whom they recognize as author- 
ities in their church, who condemns the doctrine. "To omit 
what a Romanist would deem the inferior authorities of Theo- 
doret and Ephrem and Facundus and Raban of Mentz, a direct 
censure upon the palpable novelty of a physical change was spe- 
cially pronounced by the presiding Pope himself. Gelasius, the 
lawful head of the universal church, for the time being, expressly 



62 



declared, with the full concurrence of that church, and even in 
controversial opposition to the then new dogma of a physical 
change, that the substance or nature of the bread and wine ceases 
not to exist!' "It was equally impugned by Heribald of Auxerre, 
Amalar of Triers, Bertram of Corby, Walafrid Strabo, Christian 
Druthmar, Drepanius Florus, and John Scott, Erigena." Diffi- 
culties of Romanism, by Faber, pages 130, 131. 

The last plea I shall notice is that of alleged miracles said to 
have been wrought by the presence and power of the "consecrat- 
ed host." In looking at this evidence, it is difficult to determine 
which feeling predominates in the mind, that of disgust for the 
knavery displayed, or that of sadness for the ignorance that un- 
derlies it, and on the existence of which it so largely presumes on 
the part of those who are sought to be influenced by it. 

These spurious miracles are of too classes ; a small portion 
of them are real occurrences misinterpreted, and the rest are base 
fabrications or tricks of legerdemain. 

With regard to the healing of diseases, it is a well establish- 
ed fact that the human mind has a power of overcoming certain 
diseases, which is denominated the faith cure. In this phrase there 
is no allusion to spiritual, but simply to metaphysical faith ; — the 
faith of the mind, not of the heart. On this principle disease 
may sometimes he cured, whether such faith rests upon some 
medical agent, or some worthless "charm," or on some conjurer's 

trick. On the same principle, if a Catholic is superstitious 
enough to believe in the healing virtue of the "host," such men- 
tal action may in certain cases effect a cure ; but this is accom- 
plished only by the operation of natural laws, and is entirely in- 
dependent of any virtue in the object on which such faith rests. 
The result is just the same as if he had believed a dose of skunk- 
oil would cure him ; or a bath before sunrise in some dirty pool, 
or any other superstitious nonsense. 



63 



Now John O' Flanagan is forewarned that he dare not assert 
on the basis of these statements that I admit cases of healing 
by the power of the "consecrated host." I make no such ad- 
mission ; I say it may be done by the power of the mind. 

I have already said the other reputed miracles were deceptive. 
I will simply give a few samples of this kind of argument, as pro- 
mulgated by Catholic authority. They will need no comment. 

I quote from Dowling's History pp. 199 and 200, selecting 
only two out of many others. 

"P. Orlandi, in his History of the society, torn. I, lib. 2. No. 
2j, says, That, in the sixteenth century, within the Venitian ter- 
ritories, a priest carrying the holy host, without pomp or train, 
to a sick person, he met, out of the town, asses going to their 
pasture ; who, percieving by a certain sentiment, what it was 
which the priest carried, they divided themselves into two com- 
panies on each side of the way, and fell on their knees. (!) Where- 
upon the priest, with his clerk, all amazed, passed between those 
peaceable beasts, which then rose up, as if they would make a 
pompous show in honor of their Creator ; followed the priest as 
far as the sick man's house, where they waited at the door till 
the priest came out from it, and did not leave him tell he gave 
them his blessing.(!!) Father Simeon Rodrignez, one of the first 
companions of St. Ignatius, who then traveled in Italy, inform- 
ed himself carefully of this matter, which happened a little while 
before our first fathers come into Italy, and found that all happen- 
ed as has been told." 

Again, "This instance is related by Friar Leon, and was first 
published at Paris in 1633, with the approbation of two popish 
doctors of theology, and has been reprinted no longer ago than 
the year 182 1." 

"In the year of our Lord 1290, in the reign of Philip the 



6 4 



Fair of France, a poor woman who had pledged her best gown 
with a Jew for thirty pence, saw the eve of Easter day arrive 
without the means of redeeming her pledge. Wishing to receive 
the sacrament on that day, she went and besought the Jew to let 
her have the gown for that occasion, that she might appear de- 
cent at church. The Jew said, he would not only consent to 
give her back the gown, but would also forgive her the money 
lent, provided she would bring him the host, which she would 
receive at the altar. The woman, instigated by the same fiend as 
Judas, promised, for thirty pence, to deliver into the hands of a 
Jew, the same Lord as the traitorous disciple had sold for thirty 
pieces of silver. The next morning she went to church, receiv- 
ed the sacrament, and feigning devotion, she concealed the host 
in her handkerchief; went to the Jew's house, and delivered it 
into his hands. No sooner had the Jew received it, than he 
took a pen-knife, and laying the host upon the table, stabbed it 
several times, and behold blood gushed out from the wounds in 
great abundance.(!) 

The Jew, no way moved by this spectacle, now endeav- 
ored to pierce the host with a nail, by dint of repeated blows 
with a hammer, and again blood rushed out. Becoming more 
daring, he now seized the host, and hung it upon a stake, to in- 
flict upon it as many lashes with a scourge, as the body of Christ 
received from the Jews of old. Then snatching the host from 
the stake, he threw it into the fire ; and, to his astonishment, saw 
it moving unhurt in the midst of the flames. Driven now to 
desperation, he seized a large knife, and endeavored to cut the 
host to pieces, but in vain. And as if to omit no one of the suf- 
ferings endured by Jesus on the cross, he seized the host again, 
hung it in the vilest place in the house, and pierced it with the 
point of a spear, and again blood issued from the wound. Last- 



65 



ly he threw the host into a cauldron of boiling water, and, in- 
stantly, the water was turned into blood ; and lo ! the host was 
seen rising out of the water in the form of a crucifix, and Jesus 
Christ was again seen dying on the cross. (///) 

The few having crucified the Lord afresh, now hid himself in 
the darkest cellar of the house ; and a woman having entered 
the house, beheld the afflicting picture of the passion of our 
Lord again exhibited on earth. Moved with fear she fell on her 
knees, and made on her forehead a sign of the cross, when, in a 
moment, the body of Jesus Christ, which was suspended on the 
cross over the cauldron, turned into the host again, and jumped 
into a dish which the woman held in her hand. (!) The woman 
took it to the priest, told the story I have repeated to you, and 
the Jew was seized, sent to prison, and burnt alive. 

The pen-knife with which the host was pierced, the blood that 
flowed from the wounds, the cauldron and the dish, are all pre- 
served, AS AX IXFALLIBLE PROOF OF THIS MIRACLE." 

Now I take the position that the sure way to avoid such ab- 
surd and disgusting folly, and the gross idolatry necessarily con- 
nected with it, is not by modifying transubstantiation into "con- 
substantiation," or the "doctrine of spiritual presence." All talk 
about a personal or real presence of Jesus in the materials of 
the ordinance is folly. The only divine presence is the Holy 
Spirit ; — and he, not in the material ordinance, but in the hearts 
of true Christians, just as He is with them at all times, and in the 
discharge of every Christian duty. 

Neither is there any better evidence of a "moral change," 
than of physical, in the essence and nature of the bread and fruit 
of the vine, at the "awful moment of consecration." They are 
no more sacred after, than before the prayer, and to apply any 
that may be left over, to ordinary use is not "sacralege." 



66 



But the way of safety is found in the plain, simple, and beau- 
tiful symbolism, so clearly taught in the scriptures. Participa- 
tion in the ordinance is purely a spiritual service, and consists 
not in the least of ritualism. By the vision of the soul, J "the 
eyes of faith," only, do Christians "discern the Lord's body," in 
observing this memorial ordinance. 



CHAPTER IX. 



CREED OF PIUS IV. 

In order to show plainly that I am not endeavoring to mis- 
represent the doctrines of the Catholic Church, I here insert, in 
full, the form of creed to which the members of that church are 
required to subscribe, or assent, on many occasions. This is 
called the creed of Pope Pius IV, because it was promulgated by 
him in the year 1564, the year after the close of the Council of 
Trent. Its appearance here will be also a matter of convenience 
for reference as we shall have frequent occasion to turn to it for 
definitions, and for formal statements of doctrine. 

"I, N.N., with a firm faith believe and profess all and everyone of those 
things which are contained in that creed which the holy Roman Catholic Church 
maketh use of. To-wit : I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of 
Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible : And in one Lord Jesus 
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; 



6; 



God of God ; Light of Light ; true God of the true God ; begotten, not made; con- 
substantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, 
and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy 
Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Was crucified also for us under 
Pontius Pilate ; he suffered and was buried. And the third da} 7 he rose again, 
according to the Scriptures ; sits at the right hand of the Father, and is to come 
again with glory to judge the living and the dead ; of whose kingdom there shall 
be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Lifegiver, who proceeds from 
the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored 
and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And (I believe) One, Holy, Catholic, 
and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins ; and I 
look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. 

I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradi- 
tions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. 

I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to the sense in which our holy 
Mother the Church has held, and does hold ; to which it belongs, to judge of 
the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and 
interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers. 

I also profess that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the 
New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation 
of mankind, though not all for every one; to-wit : Baptism. Confirmation, the 
Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony ; and that they 
confer Grace ; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be re- 
iterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved 
ceremonies of the Catholic Church, used in the solemn administration of the 
aforesaid sacraments. 

I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been de- 
fined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin and 
Justification. 

1 profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, 
and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. And that in the most 
holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially the 
Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into 
the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood ; which con- 
version the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess, that un- 
der cither kind alone, Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. 

I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory ; and that the souls therein de- 
tained are helped by the suffrages of the Faithful. 

Likewise that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honored 



68 



and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are 
to be had in veneration. 

I most firmly assert, that the Images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever 
Virgin, and also of other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due hon- 
or and veneration is to be given them. 

I also affirm, that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church; 
and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 

I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Eoman Church, for the Mother 
and Mistress of all Churches ; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of 
Rome — successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. 

I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things, delivered, defin- 
ed and declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly 
by the holy Council of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all 
things contrary thereto, and all heresies, which the church has condemned, re- 
jected and anathematized. 

I, N. N., do at this present freely profess, and sincerely hold, this true 
Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved ; audi promise most con- 
stantly to retain and confess the same entire and nn violated with God's assist- 
ance, to the end of my life." 

This creed has the merit, at least, of being very positive and 
explicit in most of its statements of doctrines. It also has the 
merit, (or rather demerit) of making no attempt to conceal the 
spirit of bold arrogance in which it was conceived. When one 
sees with what flippancy and brazen impudence it deals out the 
imperative mandates, and vile traditions of the corrupted organ- 
ization whence it emenates, and with what cool recklessness it 
sets aside what God has declared to be truth in the word of in- 
spiration, and sets up, what God has condemned, as the very 
things to be believed and practiced, the mind very naturally re- 
verts to Paul's description of the Man of Sin, "Who opposeth 
and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is wor- 
shipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, show- 
ing himself that he is God;" (n Thes. n, 4.) "Even He, whose 
coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and 
signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness 



69 



for them that perish ; because they received not the love of the 
truth, that they mijjht be saved. And for this cause God send- 
eth them a working of error, that they should believe a lie ; that 
they all might be judged who believe not the truth, but had 
pleasure in unrighteousness." (9 — 12.) 

Instead of the Bible being recognized as the rule of faith, 
and court of final appeals, that God-inspired oracle is throttled, 
and forbidden to speak except by the permission of the church, 
and even then the true sense can only be known through the 
same authority ! Such a manacle of spiritual slavery is certainly 
too galling to be worn by any one worthy the name of a free- 
man. Its clanking is the muttering echoes of the tyrannical age 
in which it was brought forth. Its harsh notes make fearful dis- 
cords in the midst of the intelligence, culture, civilization, refine- 
ment and piety of the evening of the nineteenth century ; — espe- 
cially in this fair abode of liberty, "the land of the free, the home 
of the brave." 

He who bows his servile neck to this galling yoke debases 
his own manhood, denies his own capacity and right of judg- 
ment, spurns the finished work of Jesus Christ, turns away from 
the scriptures, which "are able to make him wise unto salvation," 
and like Esau "sells his birthright for a mess of pottage." To 
my mind one of the saddest scenes to contemplate in this world 
is the vast number of Catholic schools, — which constitue the 
boast of Rome, — remembering that each of these is a dismal 
work-shop in which spiritual chains of bondage are being con- 
stantly forged and firmly riveted upon the souls of the precious 
youths who are gathered there, securing them from all indepen- 
dent investigation, blinding their eyes to the light, stultifying 
their mental powers, and so poisoning their souls with hatred to 
the truth, that it is far harder to reach them with the power of 



yo 



the Gospel than it is the benighted heathen, who never heard of 
the true God. 

Let protestants, and men of the world as well — men of no 
faith — beware how they consign their sons and their daughters 
to these factories of servile bondage ! 

While our pity is awakened by the sight of the helpless 
youths who are being thus manacled, and our philanthropy is 

stirred by the ignorance and abject servitude of the laity, a feeling 
of a very different kind is awakened when we turn our observa- 
tion toward the motley horde of ecclesiastics, who lay the founda- 
tion for their tyrannical oppression in the enforced ignorance and 
debasing superstition which they systematically entail upon their 
miserable subjects ; — detestable, petty tyrants who gloat over hu- 
man thraldom, even spiritual thraldom of the darkest dye, and 
with a flourish of mock piety mingled with fiending satisfaction 
wield the lash of vile slavery with an effrontery that puts to 
shame the cruelty of the vilest temporal despot. 



Note. — The changes from the creed of Pius IV made in that of Pius V, or that of 
Pius IX are so slight the form here given was sufficient for present purposes. The ad- 
dition in the last of the doctrines of The Immaculate Conception, and The Infallibil- 
ity of the Pope, is the most important change. 



7i 



CHAPTER X, 



THE MASS; SATISFACTION; PURGATORY, &c. 

For the sake of securing such brevity as I have proposed to 
adopt in this work, I will group together, in this chapter, several 
of the doctrines of Rome, as all having a more or less direct 
bearing upon, and antagonism to the scriptural doctrine of Jus- 
tification. 

The Word of God teaches abundantly that the great blessing 
secured by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, and offered 
to men through the gospel, is justification ; and that the only 
condition on the part of the individual, upon which his reception 
of this inestimable blessing depends, is personal faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ. "The just shall live by faith." 

This doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith," is so 
well understood by the masses of the people who will feel an in- 
terest in reading this little book, and is so positively taught in 
the Bible, and especially in the writings of the apostle Paul and 
particularly in the first five chapters of his Letter to the Romans, 
that I do not feel myself called upon here to enter into any ar- 
gument to prove the truth of it. Yet this institution which ar- 
rogates to itself the name of the Roman Catholic Church denounces 
the doctrine, and pronounces a curse upon every person who be- 
lieves it. The decree of the Council of Trent adopted at the sixth 
session on January 13th, 1547, contains this anathema ; "Who- 



72 



soever shall affirm, that men are justified solely by the imputa- 
tion of the righteousness of Christ, by the remission of sin, to 
the exclusion of grace and charity, which is shed abroad in their 
hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them ; or that the grace 
by which we are justified is only the favor of God ; let him be ac- 
cursed r ." 

This one sample will suffice to show the character of the 
teaching of that Council on the doctrine of justification, the de- 
cree concerning which, consisted of sixteen chapters and thirty- 
three canons, every one of which he who subscribes to the creed 
of Pope Pius IV, vows to "receive and embrace" to the end of life. 

It having been now decided by this great oracle of Roman- 
ism that the grace of God is insufficient to reach the lost sinner, 
and that the death of Jesus Christ was inadequate to make a 
complete atonement for sin, the way was opened up for the in- 
troduction of all manner of human inventions and wicked abom- 
inations, and idolatrous ceremonies. 

Through this broad highway of corruption, the process was 
made very easy for the introduction of the vilest "doctrines of 
devils" and "damnable heresies," and the establishment of the 
most impious rites, and the exaction of almost fabulous sums of 
money for the gratification of the sordid greed of men wholly 
given to the worship of "Filthy Lucre." With a zeal and de- 
votion eminently worthy of a far better cause, their deluded fol- 
lowers have foolishly been, for centuries, replenishing the swell- 
ing treasuries of the church and the mercenary ecclesiastics, out 
of the meagre earnings of their hard toil. The boasted zeal of 
the propagators of the Catholic faith, when properly analyzed, in 
most cases, will be found to be "covetousness, which is idolatry.'" 

In this standard creed we find this to be the definition of the 
Mass: — "I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to 



73 



God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and 
the dead." Butler's Catechism defines it thus : "The sacri- 
fice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which are really pres- 
ent under the appearance of bread and wine ; and are offered to 
God by the priest for the living and the dead." 

Webster says : "The consecration and oblation of the host, 
still constitutes the principal part of public worship in the Ro- 
man Catholic churches." 

As to the importance attached to this sacrifice, "Butler's Cat- 
echism" gives as the first of the "six commandments of the 
Church" this injunction, "i. To hear Mass on Sundays, and all 
holy-days of obligation." By way of explanation he gives these 
questions and answers ; page 65. 

"Q. What is our first and chief duty on Sundays and holy- 
days ? 

A. To hear Mass devoutly ; and in every other respect we 

should keep them holy. 

0. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or holy- 
day ? 

A. It is, if the omission be culpable; and fathers and moth- 
ers, masters and mistresses, and all such persons, sin grievously , 
who hinder, without sufficient cause, children, servants, or others 
subject to them from hearing Mass on a Sunday or holy-day." 

From the vast amount of literature on this subject, I need 
only to cite two anathemas, to prove that this ceremony of pub- 
lic worship is idolatrous, as found in the decree on Transubstan- 
tiation, issued Oct. 1 ith, 1 5 5 1 , at the thirteenth session of the 
Council of Trent. "Whoever shall deny, that in the most holy 
sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substan- 
tially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
together with his soul and Divinity, and consequently Christen- 



74 



tire ; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign or 
figure, or by his power, let him be accursed. 

Whoever shall affirm, that Christ the only begotten Son of 
God, is not to be adored in the holy eucharist with the external 
signs of that worship which is due to God alone ; and therefore 
that the eucharist is not to be honored with extraordinary festive 
celebrations, nor solemnly carried about in processions according 
to the laudable and universal rites and customs of holy church, 
nor publicly presented to the people for their adoration ; and 
that those who worship the same are idolators ; let him be ac- 
cursed." 

This proves from their own decrees, that they worship the 
eucharist with that adoration which is due to God alone, and I 
have already proved the falsity of Transubstantiation by the tes- 
timony of the physical laws of nature, by that of the Scriptures 
and by the evidence of Catholic writers, including the declara- 
tions of a Pope, speaking ex cathedra ; they therefore stand con- 
victed of idolatry. 

I will now dismiss this subject of the sacrifice of the Mass, 
by contrasting with it just a few sentences from God's word. 
"For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands like 
in a pattern to the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear 
before the face of God for us ; not that he should offer himself 
often ; as the high priest entered into the holy place year by year 
with blood not his own ; else must he often have suffered since 
the foundation of the world ; but now once at the end of the 
ages hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to 
die, and after this cometh judgment, so Christ also, having been 
once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, 
apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation." Heb. 



75 



ix, 24 — 28. "For by one offering hath He perfected forever 
them that are sanctified." Heb. x, 14. 

The doctrine of satisfaction which I have mentioned at the 
head of this chapter is held to be one part of the sacrament of 
Penance. They teach that penance consists of contrition, confes- 
sion and satisfaction. With regard to the last item their writings 
are noted for obscurity and indefmiteness. A French champion 
of the faith (the Bishop of Aire) has this to say, as quoted by 
Faber : 

"Although the Savior, by the infinite value of his blood, might 
no doubt have delivered us both from eternal punishment and 
from transitory punishment; in matter of fact, it has pleased him 
to deliver us only from the former. This latter, as justly due to 
our sins, he has left us still to undergo. Whence, consequently 
we must undergo it, either in the present world, or in the next 
world, or jointly in both worlds. Now the undergoing of this 
transitory punishment is what the Latin Church denominates a 
making of satisfaction to the justice of God!' 

We mav consider in connection with this the following can- 
ons of the Council of Trent : — "Whoever shall affirm, that the 
entire punishment is always remitted by God, together with the 
fault, and therefore that penitents need no other satisfaction than 
faith, whereby they apprehend Christ, who has made satisfaction 
for them ; let him be accursed. 

Whoever shall affirm, that we can by no means make satisfac- 
tion to God for our sins, through the merits of Christ, as far as 
tlie temporal penalty is concerned, either by punishments inflict- 
ed on us by him, and patiently borne, or enjoined by the priest, 
though not undertaken of our own accord, such as fastings, pray- 
ers, alms, or other works of piety ; and therefore that the best 
penance is nothing more than a new life ; let him be ACCURSED. 



7 6 



"Whoever shall affirm, that the satisfactions by which peni- 
tents redeem themselves from sin through Christ, are no part of 
the service of God, but, on the contrary, human traditions, which 
obscure the doctrine of grace, and the true worship of God, and 
the benefits of the death of Christ ; let him be accursed. 

Butler's Catechism contains the following : 

"Q. What do you mean by the penance enjoined by the con- 
fessor ? 

A. The prayers and other good works which he enjoins on 
penitents, in satisfaction for their sins. 

Q. Will the penance, enjoined in confession, always satisfy 
for our sins ? 

A. No ; but whatever else is wanting may be supplied by in- 
dulgences, and our own penitential endeavors. 

Q. What is the use of an indulgence ? 

A. It releases from a canonical penance, enjoined by the 
church on penitents, for certain sins. 

Q. Has an indulgence any other effect ? 

A. It also remits the temporary punishments, with which 
God often visits our sins, and which must be suffered in this life 
orthe next ; unless canceled by indulgences, by acts of penance, 
or other good works. 

Q. What is purgatory ? 

A. A place of punishment in the other life, where some souls 
suffer for a time, before they can go to Heaven. 

Q. When God forgives mortal sin, as to the guilt of it, and 
eternal punishment it deserves, does he require temporary pun- 
ishments to be suffered for it ? 

A. Yes ; very often for our correction — to deter us from 
lapsing into sin ; and that we should make some atonement to 
his offended justice and goodness." 



77 



From these standards we gather that Romanism teaches that 
notwithstanding the atonement made by Christ, still God re- 
quires those who trust in Christ, to make for themselves propi- 
tiatory satisfaction by prayers, alms-deeds, and other good works 
performed in this life, or by penal suffering endured either in 
this world or in purgatory. Thus the atonement of Christ, being 
insufficient to meet the demands of God's justice, must be supple- 
mented by an atonement made by the sinner himself; and the 
work of Jesus Christ is degraded into a mere stepping-stone to 
be used for ascending up to the higher work of a corrupt and re- 
bellious sinner, which shall render perfect satisfaction. How ab- 
surb such folly ! Is this not truly Antichrist ? 

The doctrine of satisfaction, then, is seen to be one of the im- 
portant links in the pondrous chain of bondage by which the 
subjects of the tyrannical system of popery are held in such de- 
grading spiritual subjugation, connecting as it does the infamous 
confessional with the atrocious doctrines of indulgences and pur- 
cfatorv, with all their concomitants of avarice, delusion and crime. 

When we look at these miserable human inventions and 
"doctrines of devils," and reflect how degrading their effect on 
the work of the Son of God, and mark how directly they antag- 
onize both the spirit and the letter of God's word ; we are no 
longer surprised at Rome's bitter opposition to the circulation of 
the scriptures among the people. 



78 



CHAPTER XI. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 

I have already stated on page (75) that popery teaches that 
penance consists of three parts contrition, confession, and satisfac- 
tion. The second part is so emphasized and magnified by them 
that it seems necessary to give it a little further consideration. 
Auricular confession simply means confession made in the ear, 
and is applied to a secret confession made to a priest whom they 
call the "father confessor." This confession must be more than 
a general acknowlegment of sin and consequent guilt, no matter 
how marked may be the evidence of genuine contrition, and 
"Godly sorrow." It must in detail particularize every sinful 
thought, word or deed ; and compliance with this arbitrary re- 
quirement and tyrannical demand, is enforced by the terrifying 
threat of eternal damnation. The great end attained by this di- 
abolical invention is the elevation and perpetuation of the power 
of the clergy over the deluded people. 

Now this auricular confession, is that which Rome enjoins as 
a central and an indispensable part of the great saa i anient of Pen- 
ance. The standards also teach positively that such sacramental 
confession is "necessary to salvation',' and that it is "necessary in 
order to obtain absolution from the priest!'' I am aware that many 
protestants think it is uncharitable to charge that Catholics teach 
that the priest can forgive sins ; but I do not regard the mantle 



79 



of Christian charity as an impenetrable screen to be thrown over 
falsehood and error, and to hide from view the abominations and 
corruptions that flow from that error. I am also aware that 
many Catholics deny the charge ; and aver that while they are 
Catholics they "do not believe any such stuff;" — that "it is fifty 
years behind the times ;" — that "progressive Catholics know bet- 
ter." But I affirm that in the face of the creeds and decrees of 
councils of the Roman Catholic Church, it is impossible for any 
one to be a true Catholic without professing, in the most solemn 
manner, that he believes the priest has power to forgive sins, and 
any Catholic who denies it is either ignorant of what he profes- 
ses to believe , or else he wilfully denies his own faith, and in 
either case his assertions are of no value. 

In proof of this assertion I refer again to the creed of Pius IV. 
"I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things, de- 
livered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General 
Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And 
I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, 
and all heresies, which the church has condemned, rejected, and 
anathematized." Now let us see what the Council of Trent has 
to say on this subject : 

"Whoever shall deny that sacramental confession was institu- 
ted by divine command, or that it is necessary to salvation ; or 
shall affirm that the practice of secretly confessing to the priest 
alone, as it has been ever observed from the beginning by the 
Catholic Church, and is still observed, is foreign to the institu- 
tion and command of Christ, and is a human invention ; let 

HIM BE ACCURSED. 

Whoever shall affirm, that in order to obtain the forgiveness 
of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is not by divine command 
necessary to confess all and every mortal sin which occurs to 



8o 



the memory after due and diligent premeditation — including se- 
cret offenses, &c. ; let him be accursed. 

Whoever shall affirm that the confession of every sin, accord- 
ing to the custom of the church, is impossible, and merely a hu- 
man tradition, which the pious should reject; or that all Chris- 
tians, of both sexes, are not bound to observe the same once a 
year, according to the constitution of the great Council of Lat- 
eran ; and therefore, that the faithful in Christ are to be persuad- 
ed not to confess in Lent ; let him be accursed. 

Whoever shall affirm that the priest's sacramental absolution 
is not a judicial act, but only a ministry, to pronounce and de- 
clare that the sins of the party confessing are forgiven, so that he 
believes himself to be absolved, even though the priest should 
not absolve seriously, but in jest ; or shall affirm that the con- 
fession of the penitent is not necessary in order to obtain absolu- 
tion from the priest ; let him be accursed." 

Now this is Catholicism ; and to talk about progressiveness 
is nonsense. Let them show where the church has ever revoked 
one of these decrees or curses. 

It cannot be done : for the corner stone of Popery is the im- 
mutability of the church, and the infallibility of its decrees and 
popes ; and such a revocation would undermine the very foun- 
dation of the whole superstructure. 

The doctrine of auricular confession is to be condemned and 
rejected for many reasons, some of which we will briefly notice. 
And first it is unscriptural. The Bible recognizes and enjoins 
the duty of confession ; but its doctrine of confession is widely 
different from that of the Catholic Church. While the church 
compels her adherents to confess to the priest, the Bible empha- 
sizes the duty of confession to God. "Against thee and thee 
only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight," is a sample 



8i 



of scriptural confession. Every sin is committed against God ; 
hence confession must be made to God, in all cases, for he is the 
offended and injured party, in every sin, and from him only can 
we expect forgiveness. But the priest usurps God's place in the 
matter, and practically requires God to stand aside, while he 
hears the case and dispenses pardon. 

As to confession to our fellow-men the Bible recognizes the 
reasonable principle that the confession of the transgressor 
should extend to every person who has been injured by his trans- 
gression. "Confess your faults one to another." If I have 
trespassed against my brother, the reconcilation must be between 
me "and him alone ;" if my fault has affected ten persons, my 
confession must reach the same ten ; if I have committed a pub- 
lic offense I must make a public confession. But the above 
teachings of Catholicism say nothing of confession to God nor 
to our fellow-men who have been injured, but enjoins confession 
to the Father confessor, a creature concerning whose existence 
the Bible is silent. 

This suggests a second reason for repudiating this doctrine, 
that is because it puts the priest in the place of God. 

We have just seen that to hear confessions for all sins is a 
prerogative that belongs to God alone, as does also the power of 
dispensing pardon. But I need not consume time to prove that 
the priest herein assumes divine prerogatives, for Catholics them- 
selves teach the same thing. "Dens" (the great theologian, as 
quoted by Dovvling, page 432) "avers that a confessor should as- 
sert his ignorance of the truths which he knows only by sacra- 
mental confession, and confirms his assertion, if necessary, by an 
oath. Such facts he is to conceal, though the life or safety of a 
man, or the destruction of the state, depend upon the disclosure. 
The reason, in this case, is as extraordinary as the doctrine. 



82 



"The confessor is questioned and answers as a man. This truth, 
however, he knows not as man but as God; and therefore, he is 
not guilty of falsehood or perjury." (Dens, 5, 219; Edgar 246.) 

Thus by their own showing the father confessor "opposeth and 
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; 
so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing him- 
self that he is God," and proves his identity with "that man of 
sin, the son of perdition," "whose coming is after the working of 
Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." 

Now it is perfectly evident that those who approve his as- 
sumptions, believe his lies and bow to his authority "worship the 
creature more than the Creator," and are therefore guilty of the 
most debasing idolatry, ascribing to a man the character that be- 
longs to God alone, and imploring from a man that which God 
alone can bestow. 

Again the whole system must be rejected because it en- 
courages and promotes the commission of crime. The above 
quotation from "Dens" shows how it leads the confessor into 
falsehood and perjury, and makes him a participator in the 
crimes of the so-called penitents, and in common law, he who 
harbors a thief or conceals his stolen goods becomes a confed- 
erate with him in his crime. I have already shown in the third 
chapter of this work, how this institution becomes the vilest hot- 
bed of adultery and the basest school of debauchery, and need 
not further unfold the revolting picture in this connection. 

But this is not all. Stripping sin of its heinousness by mak- 
ing its pardon hinge upon the payment of a paltry sum of money 
and a simple narration of his crimes to a man who has pledged 
eternal silence, under the most solemn vows, it encourages the 
gratification of the most sinful desires and the perpetration of the 
most revolting crimes. 



83 



I suppose this is the reason why our prisons contain such a 
large percentage of Catholics, and also the reason why the 
Weekly Catholic and other papers of its class, indulge in such an 
outburst of indignation when a Catholic priest happens to fail to 
get permission to enter a prison to administer to the spiritual 
wants of his parishioners who are incarcerated there. 

The last reason I shall here give for rejecting this doctrine of 
confession is, that it keeps the guilty sinner away from Christ, 
"The Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world, and 
in none other is there salvation, for neither is there any other 
name under heaven that is given among men, wherein we must 
be saved." A mistake here is eternally fatal. He bids us come 
to Him, and we must come each for himself. We have no need 
for the interposition of a priest, "but as many as received Him, 
to them gave He the right to become children of God, even ot 
them that believe on His name, who were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have had 
our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and we re- 
joice in hope of the glory of God. He is the propitiation for our 
sins. A high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, unto 
Him that loveth us and loosed us from our sins by his blood, and 
made us to be a kingdom, and to be priests unto his God and 
Father ; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. 
Amen." 



8 4 



CHAPTER XII. 



HOLY ORDERS, AND ECCLESIASTICAL POWER. 

Butler's Catechism defines holy orders as "A sacrament which 
gives bishops, priests, and inferior clergy to the church, and ena- 
bles them to perform their several duties in it." The Council 
of Trent passed a decree upon this subject at its twenty-third 
session, held on July 15th, 1563. This decree consists of four 
chapters, and eight canons, closing with the usual anathemas. 
A writer has given the following synopsis, which, though brief, 
is sufficient for our present purpose : 

"It taught that the peculiar excellence and glory of the priest- 
hood was the power to consecrate, offer, and minister Christ's 
body and blood, and also to remit and retain sins ; that there are 
'seven orders of ministers,' viz: 'Priests, deacons, sub-deacons, 
acolytes, exorcists, readers, and porters ;' that 'orders is one of 
the seven sacraments of the holy church ;' that in ordination 
'grace is conferred;' that bishops have 'succeeded to the place of 
the apostles,' and 'hold a distinguished rank in this hierachal or- 
der ;' that 'they are placed there by the Holy Spirit to rule the 
church of God ;' that they are 'superior to presbyters,' 'ordain 
the ministers of the church,' &c, and that all who 'presumptu- 
ously undertake and assume the offices of the ministry' by any 
other authority than by these popish bishops 'are not to be ac- 
counted ministers of the church, but thieves and robbers.' ' 



85 



From this it will be readily perceived that the doctrine of 
"Holy Orders" is a very important element in the complex or- 
ganization, which secures a vast "ecclesiastical power" concen- 
trated on the one hand in the Pope, and on the other, dissemi- 
nated through the various ranks and gradations of the clergy, all 
connected together like the wheels of a train of machinery so 
geared that each communicates its power and motion to the 
next, securing unison of action. So popery can boast of unity of 
action on the part of the clergy in wielding the tremendous 
power of this great hierarchy in securing the complete subjuga- 
tion of the "laity," the rank and file of her constituency. In fact, 
so complete is this slavery that no Catholic dares to think, to 
read, to investigate, to form an opinion, or to act for himself only 
just so far as the authorities of the church graciously permits, un- 
der penalty of excommunication, which he is taught to believe is 
equivalent to eternal damnation. And not content with "lording 
it" over their own heritage, they apparently would be glad if 
they had power to put a gag in my mouth, and shackles upon 
the hand that wields my pen ; but having been deprived of the 
guillotine, the dungeon, the stake, and the numerous other mur- 
derous inventions for the extirpation of heretics, they are com- 
pelled to be content with "waiting and gnashing their teeth" in 
malicious personal hatred, and exploding the blank cartridges of 
powerless curses. 

I rejoice in the freedom which my Saviour has given me. 
Jesus who came 

* To proclaim release to the captives, 
And recovering of sight to the blind, 
To set at liberty them that are bruised, 
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ;" 
said to the ritualistic Jews : "If therefore the Son shall make you 
free, ye shall be free indeed." 



S6 



How striking the contrast when we turn from viewing Rom- 
ish tyranny, and contemplate the beautiful simplicity and per- 
fect freedom enjoyed in the primitive church. The idea of or- 
ders, or ranks, or superior and inferior grades in the ministry 
is utterly condemned. On this point Jesus quieted the conten- 
tion of his disciples by declaring to them : "The kings of the 
Gentiles have lordship over them, and they that have authority 
over them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so. But 
he that is greater among you, let him become as the younger, 
and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." The fiction of Pe- 
ter's primacy among the apostles is in such direct contradiction 
to this and many other scriptures, is so nonsensical, and has been 
so frequently disproved, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter 
upon its discussion here. While different titles are applied to the 
ministers of the gospel in the New Testament, they are not used 
in such a way as to teach a system of Episcopacy. The word 
apostle, meaning one sent forth, was first applied to the twelve 
whom Jesus sent out during his personal ministry, and was af- 
terward extended to Matthias, to Paul and Barnabas, and prob- 
ably to others. It seems to have been equivalent to our modern 
use of the word missionary, which has precisely the same ety- 
mological meaning. Evangelist— a proclaimer of glad tidings — 
differed very little from the later use of apostle. The words 
pastor, elder and bishop, were used indiscriminately to designate 
one who had the oversight of a church. Conceiving of a church 
as a community, it was natural to call the leader a bishop or 
overseer ; regarding it as the flock of God, he is the pastor or 
shepherd ; speaking of it as the Israel of God he becomes the 
presbyter or elder, and thus these six titles are seen to designate 
one and the same office. 

At the same time the churches were independent communi- 



87 



ties, believing the same doctrines, following the same practices, 
and laboring for the same ends ; but exercising no jurisdiction 
over each other. 

As to the method of departure from the primitive simplicity 
I will quote from Mosheim, the celebrated church historian : 

"The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not long 
confined to their original narrow limits, but soon extended them- 
selves, and that by the following means : The bishops who lived 
in the cities, had, either by their own ministry or that of their 
presbyters, erected new churches in the neighboring towns and 
villages. These churches, continued under the inspection and 
ministry of the bishops, by whose labors and councils they had 
been engaged to embrace the gospel, grew imperceptibly into 
ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks afterward called dio- 
ceses. The churches, in the early time, were entirely independ- 
ent ; none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each 
one governed by its own rules and its own laws. For, though 
the churches founded by the apostles had this peculiar difference 
shown them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful 
cases ; yet they had no judicial authority, no sort of supremacy 
over others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing 
on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality that 
reigned among the primitive churches ; nor does there even ap- 
pear in the first century, the smallest trace of that association of 
provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans deriv- 
ed their origin. 

"During a great part of the second century, the Christian 
churches were independent of each other ; nor were they joined 
together by association, confederacy, or any other bonds but those 
of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed 
by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approved 



88 



by the society. But, in process of time, all the Christian churches 
of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, 
which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times, in or- 
der to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This 
institution had its origin among the Greeks, with whom nothing 
was more common than this confederacy of independent states, 
and the regular assemblies which met, in consequence thereof, at 
fixed times, and were composed of the deputies of each respect- 
ive state. But these ecclesiastical associations were not long 
confined to the Greeks ; their great utility was no sooner per- 
ceived, than they became universal, and were formed in all places 
where the gospel had been planted. To these assemblies in 
which the deputies or commissioners of several churches consult- 
ed together, the name of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, 
and that of councils by the Latins ; and the laws that were en- 
acted in these general meetings, were called canons i. e., rules. 

"These councils, of which we find not the smallest trace be- 
fore the middle of the second century, changed the whole face 
of the church, and gave it a new form ; for by them the ancient 
privileges of the people were considerably diminished and the 
power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. 

"The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, 
prevented their assuming all at once the power with which they 
were afterward invested. At their first appearance in these gen- 
eral councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than 
the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in 
the name, and by the appointment of their people. But they 
soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the 
limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion, 
and their councils into laws, and openly asserted, at length, that 
Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people, authori- 
tative rules of faith and manners. 



8 9 



"Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition 
of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the 
primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies 
required that some one of the provincial bishops met in council, 
should be invested with a superior degree of power and author- 
ity ; and hence the rights of metropolitans derive their origin. 
In the meantime, the bounds of the church were enlarged, the 
custom of holding councils was followed wherever the sound of 
the gospel had reached ; and the universal church had now the 
appearance of one vast republic, formed by a combination of a 
great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a 
new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed in different parts 
of the world, as heads of the church, and whose office it was to 
preserve the consistence and union of the immense body, whose 
members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such 
was the nature and office of the patriarchs, among whom, at 
length, ambition, being arrived at its most insolent period, form- 
ed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome, and his suc- 
cessors, with the title and authority of prince of the pafriarclisy 

To trace in detail this departure from gospel simplicity from 
its beginning in the second century, to its complete development, 
in the beginning of the seventh century, into the despotism of 
popery, would be entirely foreign to the design of this little work. 
The reader is referred to the elaborate works of the various 
church historians for information on this subject. 

The great mistake of Protestantism has been that in too many 
cases episcopacy, or some modified form of clerical dominion, 
has been borrowed from Rome, and imposed upon the churches ; 
while "the mark of the beast" has been made in the forehead, 
by unscriptural rites and sacraments, and "teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men," and supplanting the teachings of 



9 o 



Divine inspiration by the traditions of the corrupt ages of the 
church. I suppose it was more than could be expected from hu- 
man nature in the dark times in which the Reformation took its 
rise, to look for a complete riddance from all error, and a perfect 
return to the beautiful simplicity and the untarnished purity of 
primitive Christianity, at one stroke ; but it certainly is to be re- 
gretted that after a lapse of more than three hundred years, prot- 
estant Christians are still sometimes found adhering more firmly 
to some papal tradition, yet clinging to the church, than to the 
plain doctrines of the Bible. The idea of sacramental grace con- 
ferred in ordination, or the kindred doctrine of ministerial au- 
thority descending in an "unbroken chain of apostolic succes- 
sion," is certainly very foreign to the spirit of primitive Christian- 
ity ; and bears the unmistakable "mark of the beast." f 



CHAPTER XIII. 



IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 



We now come to a subject concerning which we can gain no 
information from the creed of Pope Pius IV. If we turn to the 
statements of John O'Flanagan, as given in Chapter 1 1, we find 
a high flourish of words but gain very little light. The "badly 



9i 



needed information" I do not find in his pedantic muddle. His 
futile attempt to prove the universality of the doctrine is rather 
amusing. He refers to the Council of Trent, which instead of 
promulgating the doctrine, adopted the policy of non-committal, 
and hence gives him no comfort. He would fain have the unin- 
formed to accept testimony from the Council of Basle ; when in 
fact that council was so far out of harmony with the accepted 
doctrines of the Catholic Church, as to renew the decree of the 
Council of Constance, declaring the right of a general council 
to exercise jurisdiction over the Pope himself, and under this de- 
claration of authority cited Pope Eugenius IV, to. appear at its 
bar, and on his refusal to answer their charges he was pronounced 
a heretic and deposed from office, and a successor elected, who 
styled himself Felix V. All this it is true came to naught un- 
der Pope Nicolas V ; but their testimony came to naught also, — 
but "a drowning man will catch at a straw." He claims further 
to have found one man in England, in the eleventh century, in 
the person of the first bishop of Norwich, who taught the doc- 
trine ; hence, "it was the belief of England and all Christendom 
at that day." (!) 

He next leaps right into the "Greek Schismatic Church" and 
claims to find this doctrine in the "liturgy of St. Chrysostum, 
handed down to this day from the fourth century," but fails to 
tell us that the Greek Church celebrates the festivities in honor 
of the "immaculate conception" of St. Anne instead of that of 
Mary. He seems also to have dealt unfairly with dates, as Chrys- 
ostom died in the year 407. This being his earliest reference, 
he stops in his investigation nearly four hundred years away 
from the purity of primitive Christianity, in the midst of corrup- 
tions and degeneracies which have completely changed the face 
of Christianity from its present beauty. This dark chasm he at- 



9 2 



tempts to bridge by the unsupported assertion that "this doc- 
trine is coeval with the Christian Church," and then boasts of 
giving dates and authorities. 

A more reliable history of this matter is found in the "Peo- 
ple's Cyclopedia," p. 945. "The festival of the conception itself 
is traceable in the Greek Church from the end of the fifth cen- 
tury, and in the Latin dates from the seventh ; but a great con- 
troversy prevailed for a long time in the West as to whether, and 
in what sense, the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary was to 
be held immaculate, and in what sense the blessed Virgin herself 
was to be held conceived without sin. In the end, at the instance 
of bishops in various parts of the Church, Pope Pius IX, address- 
ed a circular to the bishops of each nation, calling for their opinion 
and that of their people as to the faith of the Church on the 
point ; and on the receipt of replies all but absolutely unani- 
mous, he issued a solemn decree at Rome, in a numerous coun- 
cil of bishops, on December 8th, 1854, declaring the doctrine to 
be an article of Catholic belief, and proposing it as such to the 
universal church." 

Such was the procedure to which I deliberately applied the 
word "farce" in my first communication to the Star and Kansan, 
which seems to have stirred up such bitter umbrage in the mind 
of the editor of the Weekly Catholic. I used this epithet, not with 
the least personal feeling toward him or anyone else, but as be- 
ing well suited to express my conception of the folly of such 
solemn mockery in the name of Christianity. It was a farce be- 
cause the declaration of the dogma that this had been, from the 
beginning, the universal belief of all Christians, was false. I 
have not been able to find any allusion to such a doctrine pre- 
vious to the introduction of the worship of the Virgin Mary, 
which dates from the fourth century. Epiphanius, of Salamis, 



93 



who flourished in the first half of the fourth century, says : "Some 
persons are mad enough to honor the Virgin as a sort of god- 
dess. Certain women have transplanted this vanity from Thrace 
into Arabia. For they sacrifice a breadcake in honor of the 
Virgin, and, in her name, they blasphemously celebrate sacred 
mysteries. But the whole matter is a tissue of impiety, abhor- 
ent from the teachings of the Holy Spirit ; so that we may well 
call it a diabolical business and a manifest doctrine of the spirit 
of impurity." (Epiph. adv. Haer lib. ill, 78.) We have already 
given proof that after this there was long and bitter controversy 
over the matter, even in the church of Rome, extending on down 
to Pope Pius IX. So we see it was not the universal doctrine of 
even the Roman Catholic Church, and was entirely unknown in 
primitive times. 

The promulgation of this dogma was a farce also, because the 
doctrine itself is untrue. As demonstrated in the former part of 
this work, no doctrine has any claim of authority as a doctrine 
of Christianity unless it rests upon a scriptural basis. Now I 
deny that there is any evidence whatever, to be found in the 
scriptures, which proves this theory of "the immaculate con- 
ception ;" by which I understand them to mean, the original sin- 
lessness of the mother of Jesus. But as this is a negative propo- 
sition, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and I am 
sorry John O'Flanagan has furnished me with nothing on this 
point to refute. Whether he declined to attempt such an argu- 
ment, because of ignorance of the line of argument adopted by 
his church, or whether he did so because of a consciousness of 
the weakness and insufficiency of such arguments, I am not au- 
thorized to say, but such failure is very noticeable. The cliampion 
has evidently allowed himself to be outstripped in this matter by 
the "praiseworthy lady' "Child of Mary," whose zeal provoked 



94 



this controversy. It seems somewhat remarkable that women are 
so ready to espouse this theory ! Her first quotation is from 
Luke i, 28 : "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed 
art thou among women." This quotation is taken from the 
Douay Bible, a translation of the Latin Vulgate, and hence in- 
volves the question of translation as well as interpretation. The 
King James Version renders the first clause thus : "Hail, thou 
that art highly favoured." The Canterbury revision : "Hail, thou 
that art highly favoured," with the marginal reading, "or endued 
with grace," and the American Bible Union, "Hail, highly fa- 
vored." Now if the word "grace," in the Douay rendering, be 
construed as meaning favor, then these various readings have 
essentially the same meaning. But Catholics seem to persist in 
making the word, as here used, signify intrinsic, innate holiness, 
and thus in the language of W. H. Van Doran, "Idolatrous 
Rome changes a salutation into idolatry." The reasonable way 
to ascertain the true meaning of the passage is to go to the origi- 
nal Greek. The words here used are, "Chaire, kecharitomene." 
The first word all agree means hail) the second, the one on 
which the matter hinges, is a participle in the passive voice from 
the verb charitoo, which Greenfield in his New Testament Greek 
Lexicon defines thus : "To make accepted or acceptable, Ep. 1, 6; 
to favour, regard with favour and approbation ; pass, to be favour- 
ed, &c, Luke 1, 28;" and Pickering's Lexicon gives this definition, 
"To render lovely or agreeable ; to treat well ; to give a kind re- 
ception ; pf.pass. part, having obtained favour." This is the form 
used in the salutation. If this should leave any doubt in the 
mind of any, let him take Gabriel's own definition in verse 30, 
"thou hast found favour with God." 

This Greek word is used in only one other place in the New 
Testament ; in Eph. if, 6, it is applied to Christians : "To the 



95 



praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accept- 
ed in the Beloved," as rendered in the King James version, or ac- 
cording to the Canterbury and Bible Union revisions, "To the 
praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us 
in the Beloved." Now, if repenting sinners, through faith, "find 
favor with God," what evidence have we that Mary found it in any 
other way, when the Holy Spirit expresses it, through the inspir- 
ed writers, by the use of the same word. Jamison, — Fausset, — 
Brown Commentary has this to say on Luke I, 28, " 'Highly fa- 
vored' — a word only once used elsewhere (Ephesians I, 6, 'Made 
accepted'): cf. v. 30, 'Thou hast found favour with God.' The 
mistake of the Vulgate's rendering, 'full of grace,' has been taken 
abundant advantage of by the Romish Church. As the mother 
of our Lord, she was the most 'blessed among women' in ex- 
ternal distinction ; but let them hear to the Lord's own words : 
'Nay, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and 
keep it.' See on ch. xi, 27." "With true womanly feeling, she" 
(a woman of the multitude) "envies the mother of such a wonder- 
ful Teacher. Well, and higher and better than she had said as 
much before her, ch. 1, 28, 42; and our Lord is far from con- 
demning it. He only holds up — as 'blessed rather' — the hearers 
and keepers of God's word ; in other words, the humblest real 
saint of God. See on Matt, xn, 49, 50. How utterly alien is this 
sentiment from the teaching of the Church of Rome, which 
would excommunicate any one of its members who dared to talk- 
in the spirit of this glorious saying !" 

I have now shown conclusively that the salutation of the 
angel furnishes no foundation whatever for the doctrine of the 
"immaculate conception." The other references of the "lady' 
writer are entirely irrelevant to the subject, and in fact the one 
discussed is, I believe, about the only text on which they attempt 
to build any argument from the Scriptures. 



96 



We turn next to the bold editor's appeal to Reason. The 
greatest difficulty I have here is to gather from his language any 
definite idea of what he means. As near as I can gather his ar- 
gument it would amount to about this, when reduced to sylogistic 
form : — 

By a law of necessity, that which is pure must have emanated 
from a pure source : — 

Jesus was sinlessly pure : — 

Therefore, his mother must have been always sinless. 

The fallacy of this argument will be readily seen by anyone 
in the least acquainted with the science of logic, because the con- 
clusion contains an assumption which cannot possibly be de- 
duced from the premises. The legitimate conclusion is simply 
that his mother was pure — a proposition which no one will be 
disposed to deny. But to deduce from these premises the con- 
clusion that she was born sinless, is to deny God's power to 
cleanse the sinner. We may also apply to the argument, the 
principle of the reductip ad absw dum. If the sinlessness of 
Jesus necessitates a belief in the "immaculate conception" of 
Mary, then her sinlessness necessitates the same with regard to 
her mother ; the same is true of each mother all along the line 
back to Eve ; but the scriptures tell us "Eve was first in the 
transgression." 

Again while the major premise is true in reference to mat- 
ters in general, it does not follow that it applies to the birth of 
Jesus. While He derived his physical body from Mary, He de- 
rived His spiritual being, His life, from God. Now in case of the 
natural man, does not sin attach rather to the spiritual nature 
than to the physical? 

But we are not called upon to philosophize as to how he was 
sinless ; but simply to believe what God's word teaches about it, 



97 



because it is God's word given to us in his holy Book. Human 
opinion and human tradition are, alike, out of place in this matter. 

This doctrine, like the fiction of the "Assumption of the Bless- 
ed Virgin Mary," is nothing more, nor less, than a diabolical in- 
vention, designed to cover and excuse the heinous idolatry of 
her worship. It prepares the way for the use of that blasphe- 
mous title of "Mother of God," which is simply an indirect way 
of calling her a goddess. This is blasphemy ; for while she was 
the mother of Jesus, she was only the mother of his humanity ; 
but not of the Divinity which dwelt in him as the "Christ of God." 

The final outcome of this and their other teachings with re- 
gard to Mary, is to magnify her greatness above that of her di- 
vine Son, ascribe to her the crowning glory of the work of hu- 
man redemption, and to bestow upon her that Divine worship 
that is due to the "Son of God." 



98 



CHAPTER Xr'IV. 



ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY. 

In the last chapter I have alluded to this feast of the Catholic 
church, or rather to the doctrine which underlies it, as a fiction, 
invented to justify, or strengthen the plausibility of her worship. 

Inasmuch as but few persons outside the Catholic fold, have 
taken the pains to inform themselves as to the meaning of this 
expression, or the place it occupies in this monstrous system of 
abominable corruptions, it seems necessary to give here a little 
space for its consideration. 

Webster's sixth definition of assumption reads thus : — "The 
taking up a person into heaven. Hence, in the Roman Catholic 
and Greek churches y a festival in honor of the miraculous assent 
of the Virgin Mary into heaven." The "People's Cyclopedia" 
is a little fuller, thus : — "Assumption of the Virgin Mary. A 
festival of the Romish Church. In the seventh century the idea 
originated that the soul and body of the Virgin had been carried 
up to heaven by Christ and his angels. The Roman Catholic 
Church, therefore, has ever since that period kept the 15th of 
August in memory of Mary's translation into glory ; although 
from the fourth century until then it had kept the same day in 
memory of her death." 

Now these are the plain, unvarnished facts in the case, as 
shown by all reliable history bearing upon the subject. Yet Cath- 



99 



olic writers and orators will not hesitate to declare, in the face of 
these facts, that the Christian church has observed this festival 
from the beginning. As a proof of this reckless daring in deal- 
ing with the facts of history I need only refer to the "False De- 
cretals, a collection of the Papal letters, canons, etc., chiefly for- 
geries, ascribed to Isidorus Mercator, and dating from the first 
half of the ninth century. The object of the fraud, first estab- 
lished by German Protestant critics, sixteenth century, was to 
exalt ecclesiastical above secular dominion ; and upon it, as 
some Protestant historians assert, is based the claim of papal 
supremacy." (Peop. Cyc, p. 546.) 

It is not, by any means, a pleasant duty for me to bring so 
grave a charge as this is, against their historians and other de- 
fenders ; nor would I have the reader to understand that it is 
absolutely universal in its application ; for while the majority 
are guilty, still there are honorable exceptions, such as Fleury, 
Baronius and a few others, in parts of their writings. But it 
seemed necessary to say this much, in order to warn the student 
of history to withhold his credence until he has heard the evi- 
dence, and beware of accepting unsupported assertion for facts. 

But how can men of any sense of honor reconcile their con- 
sciences to such falsehoods ? To answer this question we 
must look at it from the Catholic's standpoint. As a faithful 
Catholic, in his judgment, the most honoj able position in the 
world is to be a bold defender of the church. The glory of that 
church is that it never changes. Just what it is now, it ever has 
been from the days of the Apostles down to the present. And 
as "the end justifies the means," if he does manufacture historical 
statements or misconstrues others, he has committed no crime, 
for he has defended the church, and as her doctrines and prac- 
tices never change, in recording what is true now he has re- 



lOO 



corded what has always been true, and a slight discrepancy in 
dates or names is a matter of small consequence. In addition to 
such reflections as these, he has the example of a long line of 
popes and prelates, of bishops and saints, whom he has been 
taught, from his infancy, to hold in high reverence. If it be ob- 
jected that this is a very low standard of moral integrity, I reply, 
it is just as high as the "holy mother church teaches." 

The last mention of the mother of Jesus in the scriptures, is 
found in Acts i, 14, where she is mentioned as assembled with 
the Apostles, and women before the day of Pentecost. Nor is 
there to be found, either here or in any other scriptural allusion 
to her, the least evidence of any intrinsic holiness dwelling in her 
in any sense different from that which is found in every true child 
of God. From this time forward we have no record of her life, 
nor have we any reliable information with regard to her death. 
All we have to bear upon these things, which Divine Wisdom 
has chosen to conceal from our knowledge, is to be found in 
vague and misty traditions, bearing the marks of the supersti- 
tious age in which they were originated. 

On Aug. 13, two days before the festival, the "Weekly Cath- 
olic" published an editorial under the caption "The Assumption 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary," a marked copy of which came to 
me, indicating that it contained some "much needed informa- 
tion" for which I now return my thanks, for it enables me to pre- 
sent this subject with a freshness which would have been im- 
possible. No one can now say I am "fighting a man of straw," 
or a "myth of the dark ages," for he has proved it to be a present 
reality. The article is too long to present here in full, but it con- 
tains no attempt whatever to produce any scriptural authority. 
He gives history thus : "The weight of authorities locates the 
place of her death at Jerusalem, and all these authorities agree 



IOI 



that her patience was tested by a separation from her Divine Son 
to a very advanced age. The assumption of the Blessed Virgin 
into heaven, body as well as soul, is but due to the honor and 
justice of God, for the body from which the second person of the 
Godhead took flesh should never know corruption. The con- 
stant doctrine and tradition of the Church in all ages render this 
certain and authortative. It has been taught and has been the 
belief of Christians and held in the Latin and Eastern Church. 
From St. Theodosius we learn that the feast was kept at Jeru- 
salem with the utmost solemnity in the fifth century, and the cel- 
ebration of the feast is found in ancient sacramentaries before the 
time of Pope Sergius in the seventh century, besides being found 
in the liturgies of the Visigoths and Franks before the days of 
Charlemagne. It was called 'the translation' by the Greeks, 
'the assumption' by the Latins." 

In the light of what I have just said above, this is "too thin" 
to need very much comment. It is noticeable that the earliest 
date is the fifth century ; and more particularly that "the con- 
stant doctrine and tradition of the Church in all ages render this 
certain and authoritative."(!) His allusion to the "honor and 
justice of God," is remarkable for its presumption in dictating to 
God what he ought to have done. He next draws upon his not- 
very-faithful imagination, and fills about a fourth of a column in 
an attempt to draw a picture of her reception into heaven, in 
which he talks of God the Father receiving His daughter ; the 
third person, of the Godhead, his Spouse, and the Second person 
of the Godhead his mother. After calling upon his readers to 
"imagine" these wonderful scenes, he says : "To attempt to 
measure the mysteries of the infinite God by our finite reason, 
is of course pure presumption, and the glory with which Christ 
received his mother must be equally beyond our understanding 



102 



while we are in this lower state. The best enquiry we mortals 
can make into such an ineffible scene of coronation and glory, is 
a silent wonder of admiration and praise, for the mystery of the 
Incarnation, and through it the raising of a child of Adam to the 
incomprehensible dignity of the Mother of God. * * * The 
earth was blessed and humanity raised by the creation of the Im- 
maculate Mother of the Word made flesh." Now the object of 
all this imaginary picture is very plain. In it we see her figur- 
ing as a very conspicuous member of the Divine Family. She 
is at the same time daughter, wife and mother, and who would 
dare rob her of Divine homage. And that this is the real ob- 
ject is clearly proved by the closing paragraph of this wonderful 
editorial production. After going through a lengthy argument 
to prove that the faithful ought to address prayers to her, he 
gives approvingly a few very striking quotations : "Well does St. 
Francis de Sales say, 'from my heart I proclaim this loving and 
true thought. The Angels and Saints are only compared to 
stars, and the first of those to the fairest of these. But she is 
fair as the moon, as easily to be discerned from the other Saints as 
the sun from the stars.' St. Bernard exclaimed in his Me?norare, 
and common sense will teach that it must be true, 'never was it 
known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy 
help and sought thy intercession, was left unaided.' For as that 
Saint says : 'She shows to her Son in your favor the breasts that 
gave him suck, and the Son presents to the Father his wounds 
and open side.' " 

This dreadful apology for idolatry is certainly fittingly closed 
with this revolting climax so striking for vulgarity and coarse 
conception. To what deeper grossness could any thought of the 
Divine character descend. 

But one or two other points deserve a passing notice. He 



IO 



has already asserted as quoted above that "The earth was blessed 
and humanity raised by the creation of the Immaculate Mother 
of the Word made flesh," and to emphasize this idea he intro- 
duces this mock lamentation : "But in the midst of this joy and 
hope to man, comes pain. Must it not be on this feast day a 
keen morsel of satanic gratification to the devil, whose power she 
so completely crushed by her consent to the mystery of the In- 
carnation, — for as a human being endowed with free will, her 
consent was necessary — to see our deplorably blind and sepa- 
rated brethren of the sects, and still calling themselves Chris- 
tians, attempting to rob her of the prerogatives of her merit?" 

Now no one will for a moment believe that there were any 
tears of sympathy and pity for the "sects" shed over this sen- 
tence. It was evidently written for the sake of saying that the 
"merit" of human redemption is found in "her consent" to the 
mystery of the Incarnation. This is a favorite thought with the 
editor. The next issue August 20th contained a bombastic 
dissertation on "The Patience of the Blessed Virgin Mary," in 
which he asserts that the Son was a "man of sorrows" and she 
was the "sea of affliction." Thus he magnifies the sufferings of 
Mary, and minifies those of Christ. 

But of course he cannot close his article on the Assumption 
without quoting from the Apostolic Fathers : "One of the first 
Fathers of the Church, St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Poli- 
carp, an immediate disciple of the Apostles, tells us that 'Mary 
is made the advocate of Eve' for all mankind." On the authority 
of the writings attributed to the Church Fathers Dr. Arnold 
says : "When we leave the writings of the Apostles, we pass at 
once into chaos. We come to works of disputed genuineness, 
with a corrupted text, full of interpolations. * * * * We 
stop at the last Epistle of Paul to Timothy. * * * * Fur- 



io4 



ther the mist hangs thick, and few and distorted are the objects 
which we can discern in the midst of it." 

The reader will notice that O'Flanagan interpolates the words 
"for all mankind," into his quotation from Irenaeus. Now I af- 
firm that this gives the passage a meaning entirely foreign to that 
intended by its author. Let us look at this isolated clause re- 
stored to its connection. 

"As Eve, by the discourse of a fallen angel, was seduced to 
apostatize from God ; disobeying his word ; so Mary, by the 
discourse of a good angel, was evangelized, that she should bear 
God in her womb, obedient to his word. And as the former was 
seduced to disobey God ; so the latter was persuaded to obey 
God ; in order that the Virgin Mary might thence become the 
advocate of the Virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race was doom- 
ed to death through a virgin ; so the human race might be de- 
livered also through a virgin ; the balance being equally held, 
between the disobedience of one virgin, and the obedience of 
another." 

Now it is plain that the writer, in Iren. adv. Haer. lib. v. c. 16, 
— whether Irenaeus or not — is running a fanciful parallel between 
Eve and Mary, and as Eve's rebellion consisted in one act of 
disobedience, so Mary's advocacy for her— whatever that may 
mean — consisted of the one act of obedience. Now the reader 
may judge whether Irenaeus taught that the Virgin Mary was 
the perpetual advocate of the whole human race, and ought to 
be supplicated as such. Irenaeus never thought of such a thing 
as Christians praying to Mary. 

I think this brief history of the rise of the doctrine of "As- 
sumption," showing that it originated after the Church had been 
so corrupted as to make it possible for Divine worship to be of- 
fered to Mary, together with the plain facts as to the nature and 



105 



design of that doctrine, will be sufficient to satisfy any unpreju- 
diced reader that I am justified in calling it a fiction, invented to 
attempt to justify the bestowment of Divine worship upon her. 
He will further see how it robs Christ of his glory, deifies a 
human being, and degrades the Divine character. Such a doc- 
trine is certainly befitting no one, save an idolator. 



CHAPTER XV. 



WORSHIP. 

As there is a radical difference between Catholics and Prot- 
estants, not only with regard to the meaning of the word worship, 
but with regard also to the nature of religious worship itself, it 
seems necessary at this point to investigate the nature of that 
difference in views. So wide is this difference, that, in the views 
of Protestants, much of the worship found in the Catholic Church 
is idolatrous, while Catholics repel such a charge with great ve- 
hemence. Now it is plain to any reasonable man, that under 
these circumstances, crimination and recrimination can only 
serve to make the breach still wider. The more reasonable 
course to pursue is to go back to first principles, and examine 
the foundations on which these different views rest. It is just 
here that the " Weekly Catholic' failed in its editorial on this sub- 



io6 



ject, which appears in the second chapter. As the editor has 
contented himself with spiteful personalities and boastful as- 
sumptions, and has failed to analyze and make plain these differ- 
ent views, he has only succeeded in making confusion more con- 
fused. I shall not therefore answer him by following him, seri- 
atim, in an itemized rejoinder, but will give such analysis as will 
set the matter in a clear light, and make plain the difference be- 
tween us. 

The fact to which he refers, that the word worship is some- 
times used to denote the feeling or act of respect bestowed upon 
a man because of the dignity of his person, official or otherwise, 
has nothing whatever to do with this investigation. That is civil 
worship ; but we are now concerned only with religious worship. 
The Unitarian uses this same subterfuge with a great deal more 
plausibility, claiming that the worship bestowed on Jesus was 
simply civil worship, and therefore does not prove the Divinity 
of his character. The answer to this is, that the Scripture state- 
ments show plainly that such worship was a religious act and in- 
cluded devotion and adoration, and hence recognized his Di- 
vinity, and so civil worship is excluded from the interpretation. 
By similar reasoning we readily see that civil worship is excluded 
from any investigation concerning Christian worship. 

In the light of the teachings of the Scriptures, and hence in 
the view of the Protestants, worship consists of such reverential 
feelings of the soul, and such spiritual acts of devotion as are fit- 
ted to honor and glorify God, in his true character as the Su- 
preme Being, in whom alone is found worthiness to receive such 
worship. It includes love, .faith, trust, thanksgiving, praise, as- 
cription of glory, reverence, adoration and supplication ; in fact, 
every conception and aspiration of the soul which recognizes and 
glorifies his true character as God in his supreme perfections. 



\oy 



Thus the devout child of God, "worships the Lord in the beauty 
of holiness." "For he seeketh such to worship Him as wor- 
ship Him in spirit and in truth." 

In its realization worship is spiritual, and may consist in the 
silent communion of the soul with God, or it may be expressed in 
words and acts of devotion. It may be the private service of one 
individual as in secret prayer and solitary meditation ; or it may 
be social as between friends, or in the family devotions in the do- 
mestic circle, or it may be public as in the general assembly of 
the church in the sanctuary, or other place, for the express pur- 
pose of uniting" together in the service of God. The exercises of 
social and public worship usually consist of reading the Script- 
ures, adoration and praise frequently expressed in song, prayer, 
thanksgiving, public discourse and other methods of honoring God 
and bringing the soul into sweet communion with him. The 
forms of speech used in worship, may be either impromptu, or 
they may be liturgical, in the former, the leader expresses the 
feelings and reverential emotions as they come spontaneously 
welling up in the soul ; in the latter established forms are read, 
generally partaking of the responsive character. A Liturgy, Book 
of Devotions, or Litany, is a work containing such forms. 

Roman Catholics use a Latin Liturgy. Some sects of Prot- 
estants use a liturgy in their own vernacular ; but most protes- 
tants worship impromptu, believing that this is more in harmony 
with the true spirit of pure Christianity, and that liturgical ser- 
vice tends to dead formalism. 

In all worship the idea of sacrifice is fundamental. This is 
true of paganism as well as of the worship of God. Under the 
Jewish dispensation the offering of sacrifices constituted the prin- 
cipal part of public worship. These were typical of the sacrifice 
to be made by the Messiah. Christian worship is based on the 



io8 



fact of a complete sacrifice made by Christ when "he offered 
himself once for ally Hence, in this dispensation, we "worship 
God in spirit and in truth" when we approach him in the name 
of Christ and on the basis of the sacrifice which he made in our 
behalf. In this work we have no need of any priest save Jesus 
who is our High Priest. In fact we are all "priests unto God," 
"a royal priesthood," each offering for himself unto God the sac- 
rifices of thanksgiving and praise and good works. 

But in regard to this matter of sacrifice Catholics differ essen- 
tially from us. They hold that the priest in the mass "makes a 
true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." 
They further teach that worship, like all other good works con- 
stitutes a basis of intrinsic merit and a ground of personal worth- 
iness, by which we render satisfaction for our sins. All this 
theory of sacrifice and merit Protestants most emphatically deny 
and positively reject as being both unscriptural and totally an- 
tagonistic to the genius of Christianity. The highest religious 
exercise in which man is capable of engaging, the noblest duty 
he can perform, is the work of worshiping God. In this he ap- 
proaches nearest to the sphere of the bright angels around the 
throne of God in heaven, and with this supreme act of piety God 
is well pleased. On the other hand, to bestow upon any crea- 
ture the honor that is due to God alone, constitutes the sin of 
idolatry, a sin the most heinous in its character, and upon which 

God looks with the most intense righteous indignation. Yet it is 
a sin toward which unsanctified human nature seems to have a 
very strong bias, and into which it seems peculiarly eager to run. 
Ever since the entrance of sin into this world men have ''Ex- 
changed the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the 
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." 
(Rom. i, 25.) Thus idolatry, the gravest sin, stands over against 
the worship of God, the highest piety. 



109 



Now the observance of external rites, and the performance of 
actual ceremonies of worship before some idol or other creature, 
is not absolutely essential to the existence of the sin of idolatry 
It may and does exist without these. Any state of heart or 
course of life, that puts some creature in the place God alone has 
the right to occupy, or that claims or expects, or seeks from a 
creature that which God alone can bestow, is idolatry. God re- 
quires for Himself the supreme place in our affections, hence if 
we bestow this place upon our earthly property, we become guilty 
of the sin of "covetousness, which is idolatry." 

Again we desire perfect happiness. This God alone can give. 
If then man expects or seeks it from any creature, he puts that 
creature in the place of God and seeks from it that which God 
alone can give, and thus he robs God of his glory, and worships 
"the creature rather than the Creator," and this again is idolatry. 

Under this principle, it is evident that any one who trusts for 
salvation in the Church, or its ministers, or its ordinances or 
sacraments, will not only fail to receive what God alone can give, 
but becomes in this very act guilty of idolatry. 

It yet remains for me to present the peculiar views of the 
Catholic church on the nature of Christian worship. They teach 
that, while God alone is entitled to supreme worship, and to be- 
stow this on any of his creatures is idolatry, yet Christianity rec- 
ognizes and enjoins an inferior worship which is due, as a sacred 
reverence, to the holy angels, to the saints, to relics, images, and 
many other things which they call holy. To distinguish between 
these two degrees of worship they use two Greek words. Su- 
preme worship or that which is due to God only they call latreia. 
To make this plainer to the English reader I may say the word 
idol joined to this word forms the word idolatry ; and Mary join- 
ed with it, forms Mariolatry. The inferior worship bestowed 



no 



upon saints, &c, they designate as dulia. This again is the word 
from which we derive our English word adulate. We have seen 
in a former chapter that "Mary is as easy to distinguish from the 
other saints as the sun from the stars." She therefore is entitled 
to more honor than they ; hence her worship they call hyperdulia. 

Now protestants hold that this division and sub-division of 
worship is wholly fanciful, and has no foundation either in scrip- 
ture or in fact ; but that it is a distinction without a difference. 

The reader can now see readily how the protestant may hon- 
estly say, "To worship the Cross, is idolatry," for he recognizes 
no worship short of "latreia ;" but the Catholic may just as hon- 
estly say, "To worship the Cross is not idolatry," for he means 
to worship with "dulia." 

This may have been the meaning of "Child of Mary," when 
she wrote with regard to the proposition "Mariolatry is idola- 
try," the sentence "I happen to be aware of the fact." If so the 
editor of the Weekly Catholic, did a work of supererogation, when 
he falsely interpolated the words "that he so considers it," and 
thereby demonstrated his dishonesty as an editor, and at the 
same time showed himself less acute in discerning the meaning 
of language than the "estimable lady," whom he labors so hard 
to help out of a "bad scrape." 

This whole theory and practice of inferior worship, which 
they sometimes call honor and sometimes reverence, is based on a 
doctrine of holiness, which Protestants reject as untrue. Cath- 
olics hold that ordination "confers grace" on the clergy, and that 
as a consequence they are possessed of a personal holiness which 
entitles them to the reverence of the laity. To them the title 
"Reverend" seems to have this meaning. Further this intrinsic 
holiness and grace carries with it the mysterious power to con- 
secrate or bless other persons and things. Not only churches, 



1 1 1 



bells, crosses, and other things pertaining to public worship may 
be thus consecrated, but also agnns deis } books, ornaments, trink- 
ets, jewelry, and various other things, may also be blessed and 
made Jioly. When thus sanctified these things cease to be com- 
mon, and become sacred, and must be honored and reverenced 
accordingly. It is very difficult for those who have never been 
taught this superstition, to realize the sacred awe that fills the 
mind of a devout Catholic at the presence of any of these holy 
things. In like manner it is equally difficult for such a one to 
appreciate the real nature of the worship of dulia, which they 
bestow upon these, and holy relics, saints and angels. 

In contradistinction to these views, the teachings of the scrip- 
ture lead me to conclude that absolute holiness is an attribute of 
God alone. As "there is none good save one, that is God" as 
Jesus taught, so there is none holy but God. Hence there is no 
other being that has any claim on our devotion, because of the 
possession of holiness. The holiness of angels and of sanctified 
men is only such as God has imparted to them ; and as they are 
not the authors of it, they are not entitled to worship because of 
its possession. 

Furthermore, from the same source we learn that, the nature 
of holiness is such that it necessarily pertains to a rational, moral 
being ; and by no power of sacred legerdemain, can it be com- 
municated to inanimate objects. To believe in such transfer- 
ence, is a vain superstition, and leads directly into base idolatry. 



I 12 



CHAPTER XVI 



MARIOLATRY. 



Having given, in the previous chapter, a plain and faithful 
explanation of the difference between my own views and those of 
Roman Catholics as to the nature of worship, I wish to examine 
their worship of the Virgin Mary, in the light of these views, and 
determine whether it is legitimate Christian worship or whether 
it is idolatry. In applying to it the term hyperdulia, they ac- 
knowledge it to be the highest order of their so-called inferior 
worship. Accordingly they make it most prominent in their de- 
votions. "Many festivals are celebrated in the Roman Catholic 
Church in honor of Mary., Her conception is commemorated by 
the feast of the Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8.); her birth, by 
the Nativity (Sept. 8); the message of the angels by the Annun- 
ciation (March 25); her visit to Elizabeth by the Visitation 
(July 2); her visit to the temple by the Purification (Feb. 2); and 
her ascent to heaven by the Assumption (Aug. 15.) The Na- 
tivity and Assumption are celebrated by both Greek and Latin 
churches. In the eleventh century it became the custom in some 
places to honor her by special devotions on Saturdays, and later 
to devote the month of May to similar practices of piety." 
— American Encyclopedia, Art. Mary. 



1 1 



The prominence of her worship is again indicated by the as- 
sociation of the "Hail Mary" with the "Lords Prayer" in their 
books of devotion. But the relative importance of these two 
forms of devotion is better exhibited in the use of the rosary, said 
to have been invented in the tenth century. A writer, (who re- 
fers for authority to "The Rosary of the Blessed Virgin" in "The 
Garden of the Soul," page 296, a work published in New York, 
1844, with the approbation of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Hughes") gives 
us the following description of the rosary and its use, viz: "This 
is a string of beads, consisting of one hundred and fifty, which 
make so many Aves or Hail Marys, every ten beads being divided 
by one something larger, which signifies a Pater, or Lords Prayer. 
Before repeating the rosary, it is necessary for the person to take 
it and cross himself, and then to repeat the creed, after which he 
repeats a prayer to the Virgin for every small bead, and a prayer 
to God for every large one. Thus it is seen that ten prayers are 
offered to the Virgin, for every one offered to God ; and such 
continues to be the custom, as we learn from 'the Garden of the 
Soul,' and other popish books of devotion, down to the present 
time. In the chaplets, more commonly used, there are only fifty 
Ave Marias, and five Pater NostersT Thus in their "Daily Ex- 
ercises," as well as in their more public devotions, the worship of 
Mary has so prominent a position, that one is unavoidably lead 
to ask the question, Do they put her in the place of God ? 

Perhaps some reflections may help us to answer this ques- 
tion. One place which God occupies is that of the object of our 
supreme worship. Do they give Him supreme worship, who be- 
stow ten acts of devotion upon Mary, to one bestowed upon God ? 
What would a wife think of her husband, who bestowed ten to- 
kens of devotion and affection upon a domestic, while he gave 
the wife of his bosom only one such testimonial ? Would her 



114 



jealousy be quenched by an empty profession of ''supreme" af- 
fection, which found no response in his daily deportment, which 
continues the same as before? So God is a "jealous God," and 
will not suffer his honor given to another. 

Another consideration that will help us to answer this ques- 
tion, is the fact that love is a prominent element in devotion so 
that it is but a slight variation in the proposition to say that God 
must occupy the supreme position in the affections of his chil- 
dren. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and 
with all thy soul, aud with all thy mind." (Matt, xxn, 37.) Now 
the charge which God brought against his ancient people, by the 
word of the prophet, which Jesus also repeated, was : "This peo- 
ple draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me 
with their lips ; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they 
do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men." (Matt. XV, 8, p.) There is therefore no true worship of 
God without the affections of the heart are placed individually 
upon Him. Now I ask, does it indicate such an affection for 
God to see a person boastful of his devotion to the worship of 
Mary, and more eager to be known as a "Child of Mary" than 
as a child of God. 

We find another indication that she is put in the place of 
God, in the titles which they apply to her. The favorite name 
used is "The Blessed Virgin." We have seen in a former chap- 
ter that the Catholic idea of Messed is that it denotes intrinsic, 
personal, uncommunicated holiness. Therefore it conveys to 
them the idea of a divine attribute. 

The title next chosen is used to the same effect; for if she is 
the "Mother of God," she must be possessed of a divine nature. 
Their argument for the immaculate conception leads to this con- 
clusion. They say Jesus was sinless, therefore His mother was 



i'5 



sinless. With equal propriety they may say, Jesus was divine, 
therefore His mother was divine. No doubt this is why they 
persist in saying Mother of God. 

"Queen of heaven" is a title frequently used, which seems 
to have been borrowed from pagan Rome, as applied to their 
Goddess Cybele. "There is indeed a strong resemblance, in 
many points between the pagan worship of Cybele, and the Pop- 
ish worship of the Virgin," says Dowling. Now as the queen is 
of equal dignity and rank with the king, what does "Queen of 
Heaven," as applied to Mary mean, except to signify that she is 
of equal rank and dignity with Him who is "King of kings." 
Cybele, "the queen of heaven" was also called "Mother of the 
gods," as being the mother of Jupiter. 

I might go through the whole catalogue of titles, with simi- 
lar results, but these must suffice. Now I ask, in all candor, 
does not the use of these and similar appellations, in itself ascribe 
to her Divine honors ? 

In the last chapter we have shown that this act of ascribing 
Divine honors to a creature is idolatry ; and also that to invoke, 
from any creature, such blessings as God alone can give, consti- 
tutes the same crime. 

To prove that Catholics do both these things — ascribe to her 
Divine honors and ask from her Divine blessings — we need only 
turn to the litany used in her worship. Here are four or five 
prayers quoted by Faber and Burnet, from the liturgy of the 
church of Salisbury: 

I, "Holy mother of God, who hast worthily merited to con- 
ceive him whom the whole world could not comprehend ; by thy 
pious intervention wash away our sins, that so being redeemed by 
thee, we may be able to ascend to the seat of everlasting glory, 
where thou abides with thy Son forever." 



1 16 



After the Divine honor contained in this prayer, she is cred- 
ited with redemption and asked to wash away sins, and to enable 
her devotees to ascend to heaven. 

2. Comfort a sinner ; and give not thy honor to the alien or 
the cruel I pray thee, O queen of heaven. Have me excused 
with Christ thy Son, whose anger I fear and whose fury I vehe- 
mently dread ; for against thee only have I sinned. O Virgin 
Mary, full of celestial grace, be not estranged from me. Be the 
keeper of my heart ; sign me with the fear of God ; confer upon 
me soundness of life ; give me honesty of manners ; and grant 
me at once to avoid sins and to love that which is just. O Virgin 
sweetness, there neither was nor is thy fellow." 

The idolatry here is so plain, and also in the two following, 
that I need spend no time in pointing it out. 

3. "O singularly special Virgin, mild among all, having de- 
livered us from our sins, make us mild and chaste. Grant to us 
a pure life; prepare for us a safe journey; that seeing Jesus, we 
may always rejoice together." 

4. "Holy Mary, succor the miserable, assist the pusillani- 
mous, cherish the mourners, pray for the people, interpose on be- 
half of the clergy, intercede for the devout female sex." 

I will add yet one more from the same source, which will 
show how Mariolatry blends into the worship of angels. 

5. Let our voice first celebrate Mary, through whom the re- 
wards of life are given to us. O Queen, thou who art a mother 
and yet a chaste virgin, pardon our sins through thy Son. May 
the holy assembly of the angels, and the illustrious troop of the 
archangels, now blot out our sins by granting to us the high 
glory of heaven." 

In further proof of the fact that they attribute divine honors 
and divine acts to her I may refer to the Breviary as quoted by 



"7 



"Father" Chiniquy in his little work on "Transubstahtiatiori and 
Mariolatry" pg. 29: "Rejoice, Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast 
destroyed all the heresies in the whole world." 

Of course every Catholic is bound to admit the authority of 
the Breviary. If he is a true Catholic he must believe in it, 
whether he believes in the Bible or not. Furthermore, if he is a 
clergyman and is officiating as such, whether as priest or bishop, 
he must use these forms, and repeat these sentiments in his most 
solemn devotions. He then either believes it, or he is guilty of 
base hypocrisy and solemn mockery. If the words are taken 
literally, they are untrue ; for it is evident that all the heresy in 
the world has not been destroyed. And if we give the word heresy 
the meaning that Catholics attach to it, i. e. Protestantism — it is 
rapidly increasing, and fast driving Romanism to the wall. But 
if the meaning is that all the heresy in the world, that has been 
destroyed, has been destroyed by her power, then the proposi- 
tion is still untrue, and declares a most glaring falsehood. Mary 
never destroyed a heresy in the world, but on the other hand her 
worship is one of the most abominable heresies that was ever in- 
troduced into the world. It is a heresy that robs God of his 
honor, strips Christ of the glory of human redemption and drags 
down to eternal damnation the soul that bows in worship to her. 

These are strong words, and perhaps some may feel that I am 
harsh in finding such dangerous doctrines in these words of the 
Breviary. Let such a one reflect a moment on the paraphrase 
given by the highest authority in the Church, quoted by the 
same author, p. 30. Pope Gregory xvi, speaking " ex cathedra" 
Sept. 18, 1 832, says : "But, in order that we may receive all these 
blessings, let us raise our eyes and our hands to the most holy 
Virgin Mary, who alone has destroyed all the heresies; who is 
the surest foundation of our hope; nay, who is ALL the founda- 



u8 



tion of our hope." The latter part : "nostra que maxima fiducia, 
imo, tola ratio est spei nostras, " might be more literally trans- 
lated thus : "and is our greatest confidence, nay, the only founda- 
tion of our hopes." 

According to this infallible declaration of the Pope, though 
we may have faith in Christ, our "greatest confidence" is Mary; 
though we may believe Jesus died for us, yet Mary "is the only 
foundation of our hopes." 

Now if worshiping her under a character thus highly ex- 
alted, is not bestowing upon her divine worship, — "Supreme 
worship," latreia — then, I submit, that it is impossible to do so. 
Then I come back to my original proposition that "Mariolatry is 
Idolatry," for I have proved that the worship they give her is 
latreia. 

Now the fact that not only the editor of the Weekly Catholic, 
but also all their writers deny their guilt under this indictment, 
will make no difference in the judgment of an impartial and dis- 
cerning public. Many a criminal has been executed while pro- 
testing his innocence ; and the public, whenever the testimony 
proved guilt beyond a doubt, have said, "Amen." 

Bishop Hay — "The Right Rev. Dr. George Hay," — in a work 
entitled "The Sincere Christian Instructed in the Faith of Christ, 
from the Written Word," — a work approved by a long list of 
Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Catholic Doctors and 
Priests, — says on page 448 : "To accuse the Church of Christ 
of idolatry on account of the respect and veneration she pays to 
the saints and angels of God, is an error which can arrise only 
from ignorance, misconception, or malice." In reply to this 
statement, so characteristic of Catholic writers, and of speakers 
when in presence of protestants, I have only to say that the 
above "ignorance and misconception" is based on the words and 



1 1 9 



expositions of their own authorities ; and as to "malice," the 
reader may judge as to which side of this controversy bears 
its footprints. 

I have certainly endeavored to deal fairly in this matter, "with 
charity for all and malice toward none." 



CHAPTER XVII 



HAGIOLATRY. 

This word is derived from the Greek hagios, holy, and latreia, 
worship, and signifies, specifically, the worship of the saints ; but 
it may also be applied to the worship of other things holy. 

The list of things, which Catholics regard as holy, and hence 
worthy of "honor" and "reverence," is too long to be put into 
the heading of a chapter, and hence I have chosen this word, to 
be understood in this broad sense. Of course they will say that 
hagiolatry is a misnomer ; for they only bestow the worship of 
dulia on these things. It will also be observed that Mariolatry 
is really included under this head. The worship of Mary is per- 
haps the first form of saint worship that was introduced into the 
corrupted church. A fuller extract from Epiphanius, (earlier 
half of fourth century,) will not only throw light upon this point, 



120 



but will also help us to see how it lead into the worship of the 
dead ; — the "hero-worship" of pagan Rome Christianized. This 
early writer says : — "Some persons are mad enough to honor the 
Virgin Mary as a sort of goddess. Certain women have trans- 
planted this vanity from Thrace into Arabia. For they sacrifice 
a breadcake in honor of the Virgin ; and in her name, they blas- 
phemously celebrate sacred mysteries. But the whole matter is 
a tissue of impiety, abhorrent from the teachings of the Holy 
Spirit ; so that we may well call it a diabolical business, and a 
manifest doctrine of the spirit of impurity. In them is fulfilled 
this prophecy of St. Paul : "Certain persons shall apostatize from 
the faith, attending to fables and doctrines concerning demon- 
gods. For the purport of the apostle's declaration is this: 
They shall pay Divine worship to the dead, even as men form- 
erly paid such worship in Israel. In like manner also the glory 
due unto God has been changed into error by those who see not 
the truth. For the natives of Neapolis still sacrifice to a girl, 
whom I take to have been the daughter of Jephthah ; and the 
Egyptians honored Termutis, Pharoah's daughter, as a goddess ; 
and many such things as these have happened in the world to 
the seduction of those who are seduced. But we Christians must 
not indecorously honor the saints ; rather ought we to honor Him 
who is their sovereign Lord. Let, then, the error of seducers 
cease. The Virgin Mary is no goddess. To the peril, therefore, 
of his own soul, let no one make oblations in her name." Epiph. 
adv. Haer. lib. in, haer. 78 ; as quoted by Faber — "Difficulties of 
Romanism" — who comments as follows: "From the passage be- 
fore us it is indisputable that, by the early church, the apostle's 
demonia were understood to mean, not devils, but demon-gods ; 
that is to say, his demonia were thought to be the souls of canon- 
ized mortals. Equally indisputable is it, that the prophecy was 



121 



explained, as announcing a lamentable apostasy in the Christian 
Church to the worship of dead men, who during their lives had 
been revered on account of their virtues or services. 

"The same apostasy to the worship of dead men is clearly 
foretold also by St. John, who adds some additional particulars, 
by which the predicted apostates might be better distinguished 
whenever they should be developed, 'And the rest of the men, 
which were not killed by these plagues, yet repented not of the 
works of their hands, that they should not worship demon-gods 
and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood, 
which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk.' Rev. ix, 20. 

"The predicted worshipers of dead men, were also, it seems, 
to be worshipers of images; which they would fabricate to them- 
selves out of various materials." — Diff. of Rom., pages 190, 191. 

Rome has still added to these the worship of angels, sacred 
relics, holy water, crism, crosses, agmis dels, pictures, images, and 
many other things. My limits will not permit me to take up each 
of these abominations, and give its history and derivation from 
heathen worship and its degrading effects, together with its di- 
rect antagonism to the plain teachings of the Scriptures. 

As when one attempts to destroy vinegar by adding to it 
sweetened water he only increases its quantity without changing 
its nature, the sweet water being converted into vinegar; so the 
efforts of Rome to Christianize paganism, have only augmented 
its power, as the effect has only been to paganize Christianity. 

While I cannot enter into the details of these various forms 
of hagiolatry it seems desirable that I give a few facts with regard 
to one or two, which may be taken as a sample of the whole. 

With regard to the worship of saints and relics, the Creed of 
Pope Pius IV, declares "Likewise that the saints reigning to- 
gether with Christ, are to be honored and invocated, and that 



122 



they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be 
had in veneration." 

The character of this worship of "honor" and "veneration" 
wili be clearly seen from the following extract from an epistle 
written by Pope (?) Gregory the Great, about the end of the fifth 
century, to the Empress Constantina, who was building a church 
at Constantinople in honor of St. Paul, and had requested from 
Gregory some relic of that saint to be enshrined in her church. 
The reader may make his own comments on this authoritative 
document. He says : "Great sadness hath possessed me, be- 
cause you have enjoined upon me those things which I neither 
can or dare do ; for the bodies of the holy apostles, Peter and 
Paul, are so resplendent with miracles and terrific prodigies in 
their own churches, that no one can approach them without 
great awe, even for the purpose of adoring them. When my 
predecessor, of happy memory, wished to change some silver 
ornament which was placed over the most holy body of St. Pe- 
ter, though at the distance of almost fifteen feet, a warning of 
no small terror appeared to him. Even I myself wished to make 
some alteration near the most holy body of St. Paul, and it was 
necessary to dig rather deeply near his tomb. The Superior of 
the place found some bones which were not at all connected with 
that tomb ; and, having presumed to disturb and remove them 
to some other place, he was visited by certain fearful apparitions, 
and died suddenly. My predecessor, of holy memory, also un- 
dertook to make some repairs near the tomb of St. Lawrence ; 
as they were digging, without knowing precisely where the ven- 
erable body was placed, they happened to open his sepulchre. 
The monks and guardians who were at the work, only because 
they had seen the body of that martyr, though did not presume 
so much as to touch it, all died within ten days ; to the end that 



123 



no man might remain in life who had beheld the body of that 
just man. 

4, Be it then known to you, that it is the custom of the Rom- 
ans, when they give any relics, not to venture to touch any por- 
tion of the body ; only they put into a box a piece of linen 
(called brandeum)) which is placed near the holy bodies ; then it 
is withdrawn, and shut up with due veneration in the church 
which is to be dedicated, and as many prodigies are then wrought 
by it as if the bodies themselves had been carried hither, whence 
it happened in the time of St. Leo (as we learn from our ances- 
tors), when some Greeks doubted the virtue of such relics, that 
Pope called for a pair of scissors, and cut the linen, and blood 
flowed from the incision. And not at Rome only, but throughout 
the whole of the West, it is held sacrilegious to touch the bodies 
of the saints, nor does such temerity ever remain unpunished. 
For which reason we are much astonished at the custom of the 
Greeks to take away the bones of the saints, and we scarcely 
gave credit to it. But what shall I say respecting the bones of 
the holy Apostles, when it is a known fact, that at the time of 
their martyrdom, a number of the faithful came from the East to 
claim them ? But when they had carried them out of the city, to 
the second milestone, to a place called the Catacombs, the whole 
multitude were unable to move them farther, such a tempest of 
thunder and lightning terrified and dispersed them. The napkin, 
too, which you wished to be sent at the same time, is with the 
body and cannot be touched more than the body can be ap- 
proached. 

"But that your religious desire may not be wholly frustrated, 
I will hasten to send to you some part of those chains which St. 
Paul wore on his neck and hands, if indeed I shall succeed in 
getting any filings from them. For since many continually so- 



124 



licit as a blessing that they may carry off from those chains 
some small portion of their filings, a Priest stands by with a file ; 
and it sometimes happens that some portions fall off from the 
chains instantly, and without delay ; while, at other times, the 
file is long drawn over the chains, and yet nothing is at last 
scraped off from them." Epist. Greg. mag.Lib. iv, Epist. 30. 

I will also briefly notice the worship of images. Geiseler says: 
"In the fourth century the worship of images was still abomi- 
nated as a heathen practice." Epiphnius, as quoted, gives proof 
of this near the close of that century. In A. D. 754 a council 
was convened at Hiera, opposite to Constantinople, consisting of 
338 bishops, which passed the following decree : 

"The holy and ecumenical council, which it hath pleased our 
most orthodox emperors, Constantine and Leo, to assemble in 
the church of St. Mary ad Blachernas in the imperial city, ad- 
hering to the word of God, to the definitions of the six preced- 
ing councils, to the doctrine of the approved fathers, and the 
church in the earliest times, pronounce and declare, in the name 
of the Trinity, and with one heart and mind, that no images are 
to be worshiped ; that to worship them or any other creature, is 
robbing God of the honor that is due to him alone, and relapsing 
into idolatry. Whoever, therefore, shall henceforth presume to 
worship images, to set them up in the churches, or in private 
homes, or to conceal them ; if a bishop, priest or deacon, shall be 
degraded, and if monk or layman, excommunicated and punished 
as guilty of a breach of God's express command, and of the im- 
perial laws, that is, of the very severe laws issued by the Chris- 
tian emperors against the worshipers of idols." 

Through the influence of the wicked Irene, the murderer of 
her own son, for the express purpose of establishing image wor- 
ship a council was convened at Nice in the year 787. This is 



125 



usually called the second Council of Nice. Catholics reckon it 
the seventh general council, while the Greeks hold that of 754 
as such. 

Here is the declaration of this council : "The venerable im- 
ages, both of the dispensation of our Lord Jesus Christ as he 
became man for our salvation, and of our unpoluted lady the 
holy Mother of God, and of the god-like angels, and of the holy 
apostles and prophets and martyrs, and all the saints, I salute 
and embrace and adore, according to their just degrees of honor, 
rejecting and anathematizing from my whole soul and intellect, 
that synod, which was congregated through madness and folly, 
and which has been denominated the Seventh Council : though, 
by persons who think rightly, it is lawfully and canonically styl- 
ed a false synod, as being alienated from all truth and piety, and 
as having rashly and boldly and atheistically barked against the 
heaven-delivered ecclesiastical legislation, and as having insulted 
the holy and venerable images, and as having commanded them 
to be removed from the holy churches of God — Anathema to 
the calumniators of Christians! Anathema to the breakers of 
images ! Anathema to those who call the holy images idols ! 
Anathema to those who aid and abet the dishonorers of the 
holy images !" 

By this and much more of the same sort the worship of im- 
ages was at length legalized, and to this law the authorities of 
the Roman church have ever adhered, though there has been 
much bitter controversy over the matter. 

There has been also much written about absolute and relative 
worship. This is again a distinction without a difference. God 
made no such distinction in the first commandment, which for- 
bids the adoration of images with any kind of worship whatever. 

James Naclantus, bishop of Clugium gave an exposition of 



126 



the doctrine of the Council of Nice, published in the seventh 
century, which contained this passage as quoted by Faber : 

"We must not only confess, that the faithful in the church 
worship before an image ; as some over-sqeamous souls might 
peradventure express themselves ; but we must furthermore con- 
fess, without the slightest scruple of conscience, that they adore 
the very image itself ; for, in sooth, they venerate it with the iden- 
tical worship wherewith they venerate its prototype. Hence, if 
they adore the prototype with that divine worship which is rendered 
to God alone, and which technically bears the name of Lalria, they 
adore also the image with the same Latria or divine worship ; and 
if they adore the prototype with Dulia or Hyperdulia, they are 
bound also to adore the image with the self-same species of in- 
ferior worship." 

By this Catholic authority then, we see that when an image 
of Christ is adored it is with divine worship, for such is the wor- 
ship due him. Here then, they are guilty of positive idolatry. 
Also they bestow this same worship upon the consecrated host, 
in the Mass, declaring that the wafer is then really Jesus Christ. 
But we have seen that Transubstantiation is false; hence here 
again is positive idolatry. Again, we have seen the distinctions 
of worship, to be fanciful, unreal, and unfounded; hence the 
whole scheme of hagiolatry is positive idolatry. 

Such is a partial outline of the character of an institution 

that claims recognition among us under the name of Christianity; 
a power which proposes, by strategy, and intrigue, and political 
affiliation, to destroy from our midst every other form of religion, 
all of which they call heresies, without distinction ; a power also 
that contemplates the overthrow of the free institutions of our 
Nation, having already made a direct assault upon our free school 
system, against which they are circulating most dangerous liter- 
ature in our midst. Let American patriots beware. 



127 



APPENDIX. 



For convenient reference I subjoin the closing paragraph of 
"The Sincere Christian," by Bishop Hay, together with Appen- 
dix A, B and C, found in the same book : 

"To read bad books is forbidden by the law of nature and by 
the law of God, as well as by the positive law of the church, pre- 
cisely on account of the danger of being seduced by them to 
evil. Now, suppose a person to be thoroughly learned, and in 
no probable danger of being seduced by them, yet he cannot read 
them with a clear conscience, unless he have received permission 
from his spiritual superior to do so, even though with the design 
of refuting them. If he read them without such leave, notwith- 
standing all his learning, he exposes himself to the danger of 
being injured by them in punishment of his disobedience to what 
the laws of God require of him. But if he have such permission, 
and read with the intention of refuting them, he may then do it 
lawfully, and has every reason to hope that God will preserve 
him from danger. In like manner, if a learned person, by per- 
mission of his lawful superiors, should go to the meetings of 
those of a false relegion to learn their doctrine, that he may be 
better able to refute it, this will take away the sin as to this one 
point of exposing himself to the danger; but then even this will 
not excuse the other evils of his doing so — namely, an apparent 
communication with a false religion, a seeming approbation of it, 
and a cause of offense to the faithful, who, not knowing either 
of the permission he has received or the intention with which 
he goes, cannot fail to be scandalized by it. So that, except in 



128 



such circumstances where all these evils can be prevented, such 
permission could not be granted ; and though granted, would 
not, I fear, give him full security before the tribunal of God ;' 
especially when it is considered that there seldom or never can 
be a necessity for granting such permission, since the tenets and 
doctrines of all false religions can easily be known from their 
books, or from the accounts of others, without doing a thing so 
detrimental to the honor of the true religion, and so obnoxious 
in the eyes of all pious members of the Church of Christ." 



APPENDIX A. 

By the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, dated 8th December, 1854, the 
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was solemnly defined : 

'It is a dogma of faith that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, 
in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and 
grace of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior 
of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of orig- 
inal sin.' — Ed." 



APPENDIX B. 

In the constitution Pastor ^Eternus, dated 1 8th July, 1870, 
our Holy Father Pope Pius IX, with the approval of the Sacred 
Council of the Vatican, thus solemnly teaches and defines, as a 
dogma divinely revealed, the infallibility of the Roman pontiffs : 
'We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that 
the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in 
the discharge of the orifice of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 



129 



by virtue of his apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regard- 
ing faith or morals to be held by the universal church — by the 
divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, enjoys that 
infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his 
church be provided for defining doctrine regarding faith or 
morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pon- 
tiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the- consent of 
the church. 

'But if any one — which may God avert — presume to contra- 
dict this our definition, let him be anathema.' — Ed." 



APPENDIX C 

In consequence of an application made to the congregation 
de Propaganda Fide, by the Right Rev. the Vicars Apostolic of 
Scotland, the Holy Father, Pope Gregory xvi, by a rescript dated 
the 28th day of June, 1831, granted to the Catholics of Scotland 
a Dispensation from Abstinence on all Saturdays throughout the 
year that are not fasting days. — Ed." 



CHAPTER I. 

Introductory ; ' 3 

CHAPTER II. 

Newspaper Controversy 8 

CHAPTER III. 

Spirit of Romanism 31 

CHAPTER IV. 

Rule of Faith 37 

CHAPTER V. 

Rule of Faith — Continued 43 

CHAPTER VI. 

Rule of Faith — Continued 48 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Seven Sacraments 54 

CHAPTER V I 1 I. 

Transubstantiation 59 

CHAPTER IX. 

Creed of Pius IV * 

CHAPTER X. 

The Mass, Satisfaction, and Purgatory 71 

CHAPTER XI. 

Auricular Confession . 78 

CHAPTER XII. 

Holy Orders and Ecclesiastical Power 84 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 90 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Assumption of the Virgin Mary 98 

CHAPTER XV. 

Worship 105 

CHAPTER XVI. 
Mariolatry U2 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Hagiolatry H9 

Appendix l-« 



ERRATA. 

Page 14, line 12, read surely for "suaely." 

Page 20, line 4, read It is not for "Is it not." 

Page 21, line 12, omit "it" after "charge that." 

Page 27, line 8, read sheol instead of "shoel." 

Page 40. Foot Note, read universalem instead of "univeralem. 

Page 40, " " read prsecurrit for "prescurrit." 

Page 46, 5th line from bottom, omit "and" before "princes." 

Page 61, 6th line from bottom, omit "s" from "condemns." 

Page 70, 3d line from bottom, read fiendish for "fiending." 

Page 85, 22d line from top, read wailing for "waiting." 

Page 87, 18th line from top, read deference for "difference." 

Page 91, last line, read pristine for "present." 

Page 101, 23d line, read very fruitful for "very faithful." 

Page 124. 9th line, read Fpiphanius for "Epiphnius." 



» \S I 



i7< 



3 3 3* 3> 3 3 3 

„^ 3 3 33 3> 3> 3>3> 

S>-'S3 3 3 3 3 3 3 

3» 3 > ■> ■■ £>- C> 3> -2> 3 

3 3 :> >->.?> j> 3 5> <■:> 

33 j> > 3> 3> 3> j> > 3 



> ,^-> 3>>3 
3 . j> j> 






:>3 3 35 

n>-3' 3 x> 

3 2> J* >>' 



3 2 > 3'3> 



3 3 3 3 3 

3 3 >> 3 

3> >>£> -' r .:>>- 
>> 3 > 3 3 p 

> -> ■■> > > j> 

3> 33> .3 



.333 

3» 5 >3 

3> vr> 
3> 3 

3>33 
333 ■ 

3>->3 

333 

33 
3>3 

33 



3 ? 3 

> p ^ 

3 3 

>•■ 3 3 

333 
33 

33 

3 3 

3 33 
3 3 
3 > 
3 3 

3 3> 

3 3> 

33323* 

:> z> 

3 3 



33 3 
3* 3 :>. ? z>^ 

3 3 3 srr 

> > 3 3 333 

3 3 3_> r: 
3 3333 3: 

"> > ::»■■>> 33* 
3> 33 3 ?3 3_ 

3 33 3 £> :■■ 
3> 3 3 > 3 

_Z> 3 3 3> 3' 3 
3* >-3 > > > . 3 

^ xi> > 333, I 

> ~3 ^> » 
_> :> o ^^ 

J> 333 JO 

3 >0 %>3 ■• 

~> XO >3 

> 3 ^oS> 3 3 

> D V> 3D 

> > \3 3 3 
3> .3 '.jX> 3C 



3 3 3> 

^>3> I> 



3 . ' : *' 
3 3 3> 



3> 3>3> 
^3 X>3> 

>3 333> 

33 3 3> 

3». •>> i> • 

->3 >y> 

33 3 i> 3 

3v J > 3 

3> ).3 

■ 3 , ~> • 3- : 

>3))3 
33> '.» 



> > 
3 3 
3 3 
3 3 

3 3 



3 3 : 
3 3 3 

► >3 ^> 

> 33 ^ 

^>3 Z 

' 3 -> ^Z> » 3 

\ >3 3 3 

3>,^. ■ r> > > 

> 33 r> 3 

» >-^> 3> > 

> 3 3 
^ ->3 3 

-> 3J> : 



^-3> 

^ -3> 

3J 

3 3 



3 33 

3 3 
_33> 

~>>3 

33 3 



3 3 3, y^ 

>3> > r^ 

> >3 -» 3b , ^ 

^3> 3 3 53 

-^.^> 3 3 33 
>^> > 3 3 ,>3 

> 33 3 

its, ^ 



3 3 > >3> 

3t> 3 ^> 

3^>j> 3 ~33> 

3 3 ~3 3J>' 

33 _L> 3_. 

: ^3>'3> -:■- >: 
33 3 3 3 



1,3 3 

> 3 
3 '-3 

D:3 

3':3 
3> -3 

> 3 

> 3> 
■ ■->> 

«» 3 

-■ 3 

>-3; 



3^3 >'' 3 
3o 3 3^3 
333 3 3 ' 



333 J3> >I3 J>-'-J>^> _3> 3 

3-3 Z>33> 3> ^> 

> -3 Z> :>3 >3> 

> 3> T> §} >3? 
^.3 t>33 >v3> 

> 33 3 333 

. 33 * >>3» 

■3 3 3 y>iD» 3 3 

J -3 _3 3 >3>^3> j> 3> 
ZJ>. 3 3 3 >3J» 33 3 ~ 
^3 3_^ » >>33» . ^> 3^3-.' 
5 ^ >tO > P33>> " 3. 3 3 

\D >3 3 >])> 3 3 3 
*-]>3)> 3> ^ ^3J>3 
*. 3> . 3 3 3 » S>3 r>> 3 j>" - 
"> >i3 3 3 3>' 3 3 3 

► 3 3 3 i>33 3: 

1,3 5). 3>33 3» 
3.J> 3 33 333 3; 3>> 

^.>->. ^>3*> 3* .5 3 3 -> 

;3 3;);OJ))) > >3>3 



3 i>' 3^ 

3r) 3 

3 -3 3." 

3 :-> "3 ^ 
•3 3 3 - 

3 3 3 >■ 

3 3'. 3 ' 

33 3 3 
»3 33 
■ > 3 3 

^-3 > 

5> > > 

'-3 - 1 

3' l> 3 : 

"3 3 '. i 
3 3 3.3 



>3> 

> 3> 

> S3* 

33>33* 

3>3> 

>3 33^ 



•3»> 3 ^> -^r^ 

v> :»^ 

V^ "^ >'-">■ ._3T 
^ 3>3 3 3 "-> 
3 3> 3«3 ^ 
:> ^ B 3 3 ^ 

3333 C 



3 3 

3/3 
3 ;> 

> 3> 

3 33 

3 :>3 

J> 

3 >3 

.3 ^-^ 
3 ) >^ 

> 33 

>3 3 3 ^ 



3 > 



3 3 >3 

3> i\3. > -^ 

3 3.3. ; 

3 J> • » T2>" : 

> 3> 3 v 3 

3 3 3> ■ > 3 
33 3 3 3 

3 -3 3> ->* ■> "3 
3 3 3 -■>-.> 3 
3 3.3 3*3 3 
3 33 3 ; 



3 , 


> ; ~' 


> ^ > 


3>" 

33 


f*.vS 


33> 


3 


J 3 


3 > 


3 


3 i 


-^ 



3*>- 

33D k22& 



3 3 3 ;0 3333 3>' »3)3' 33 ^">, j .\ ^ 
, A 3^> ^ >_ .3>-i>_ .> 2 >5">>»V 3iST 3 3> 

o° -^,^ 3^?3> . >,)3> 30 " 3i>; 33% 

^3 3333)i) 3333 33^ ' 

?^P--4^^> 3>33 "3333 3.3 ^ 
?^3 ^^33V'^ - ,:> ^ > * - 

) 33 ^>3 33) 333 3>3'J > 33 "^ 



.333 i S 
3_j> 3 -.-a 

33 33 
33 3 3 



^ ^ 33> 3 3 3 



3 3 
3 3 

:;g>|3.f 

^ .-> 3 JT 

r^ ^3'T 

^ 3 3 3> ^ 

^3 _3> > > ~> 
3^3 3 3aTs" -v-^ 

^>_33r> 3 3 

-^' J 3 3> > 33: 

> -^-32^ >3 3- 

33> ^v,,3 
^ ^ 3> j - 

-' >3J> 333 ^ 

3 s,33> 3 >3 - 
< - > 3 3 -33 3 
,3^ >-3> 3 33 ^ 
'-3 33>> 3 ><2>." 

3 O 333 "^ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologie! 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16Q66 






> > T3 3 Xl> 
> ? 



> 3 3 > 
> ■:> X 5 



> :> 



>^ > > ' 3 



_:> 33 > • 

3 >>3 3 > 3 



> > 3 >> > 



o > >3> 

> :> > > 

> ;> r^ 

> >3 > . > 



3 > 3 > ) 

> > :> > > 
► > j> > 



> > 

3 3 

:> o 

> > 

> 

> r 

333 



> > > 



3 53 > £> 

:> )> > > 
J> J> > > 

> >o -_> > 

3 :> 3 > 

~> o > ^ 



. j > 

> 3 >33 



> > 



3 33 3D 3 33 P .<> 



:> o > 3 

> > > > 

3 i> > 3 

> > > 3 

:> o * 3 

j> ^ > > 

:> :> > > 



LZ> > 3 

3 3 
3 
> -"> 
J> 3 
3 > 

3 3 






J> > 3 
> >> 



^ 


> >^> 


;> 


) » 


> s 


> J^ 


> 


• a •> 


> 


. o » 


> 


> ^ 


> 


) o Z 


> 


> J 


> 


> z> : 


> 


~> ~>> 


> 


> > 


> 


> ^> 


) 


> L> 


> 


J > 




> j> ; 


> 


> O 


> 


> > 



> D > 3 

3^> > > ^3 



>0)> > y > O )) 3 



► z>zrz> > z> .> o J> 

> ^r> ■■;> ^> :>C3 

J> ^> 3 '.Z> 33a 

j> )3 3 3 ^3 

S '•>£> > 3 ^^ _> 
i> > > 3 -3 •;>_> 



- >5>3> ^J> 

> > ^> >> ,^_ 

> 3 . ) ) 3 ">p 3 

> y ^ 3 XX> 3 3 

> 3 > > ->3 - 

> 3 > J> ^3 3 
> r> i> > x zz 

» 3 3 > ) 3 3 

> > i> j> > > 

3 > > )3> ->• 3 , 
X 3 j> > i> 
3 > D > > z> „ 

-^> ' > » :> > > 

3 -.>3 ">-53 » 3 



> >> > 
> ? » .3 



>^3 > 



3 3 3 

3 3 
^ 3 ^3 
3 3 3 

Z> 3 :> 3 



I > > :3 3 ) ^ > 
> 2> v^> "> ) 3 

5>3>3 3 3. 






3 3 »'3o3 >®L 
> ^ > £> i> 3> 3 

y ?> - p "3 ^> ^ - 
>> >> ^> ^> y Z& 
» > \> > >> ^» 

-> i p> ) >> ^> ^ > J> 
' ' > ^> -_> > J .^ > >*> 1Z> 

► J> >^> 

3 3>tD 3 )tP3 
^ > -^3> > . ■-> ^> 
> > 3 3 3 3 3 ^3 
\ > -> 3 3 >^» > » )3 

>333 3 > )j 3 y 



3 ^3 > > 

^> »3 ^ '3 
^^3 ■ >3 
3J>"3 3 ^^ 
3 3 -3> >;JT> 
P 3 3> >^ 
> 3_0> 3^-^ 



^> > 3 >3 13 XX > - \3 
^» > 3 >3 _3 X Z> J 

S> 33i33 >„.~3 >> ,: 

3 33 3 33 3 33 J 
3 j>3 J> 33 Z> o ^ 

3 3^3 >3 3 33 

"3 3>3 3 3 3 33 > 3 

» ,x> 3 >:3 3 ).i.3>.^ = 
>> -3 ) 3 > 3 "^> /3 > > - 

3 33 -3-3 3 V>> ^3 
3 3)3 33 3 33 .3-.^ 

J> .>3 3 X Z> »53i ^' :> 

33 o -3 3 3P yp 

>■ > 533 3> : 3 '3 "3 3 -> 

> > §> 3 >3> 3 3 3 > 

> > ; 3 i>3 v^> ZZ>X[> > > 

> 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ' 3 

> >>3 ^..^32> :>£> ^> > 

> > 3 3 > >3 >o 3 - > 
3 >3 3 > >3 33 33 ^ 

^> > j> :> 5 > > ^»->.^> > 

3 > > 3 -> 33 J0>0 

3^ >3 3 > o ^> _)o 3 3 ^ 
I> ■ >33 3 J) 3 o>3>3 3 
"! > > 3 >> % > X >> Z> > 3 

>>»»32> >33 3 >>3 3^0 
> > > .^ -^ j> > > > > > 

> > '_3 > ; 3 ; ^> jjp > i>. i 3 

)_>•-> 5 >) > >^ > j>J,^J ^> 

> ■ . > )^ > > > o > j.)>. Z> 

3 3 3>^ >> 3> 3 ^ 3 

,3 i •> _> >3 ?. as>->^_> 



> 3 3> > '3 

.> ^5 > > :^> 

•> 3> > 

3 3 5 3 
\> > ' » > 

> j> ; 
>3 3> : 

> » :> 



j> » > • 0->/>3> 3 O- 3>>'J 
■■> 3 ;)3 ^"3 » )3,33^ > 3 >> 5 > > - 

■> , v -> • i ) > s> ~> > > "> T5> > ^ > > ■ • > ' ^ 

3 ? 3 ) ^3 P 3 3 3 > 3 3» 3 > >3 3 

►^ > 3 3 > 3 y 3'3 3 5J) 3 >J> ::> ^>:3> .>: 

3 3 3 O >33 >3>) >3 \> 3 ^ >3 

>33 ) 3 >3 3 3 3 \ > 33 33 3 3 3) > >V > 

> >> 3>> .)> 3 3> 3 3»^3> 3)33 ^3>>\> i \3> 

>33 >3 3 ' 3 3 3 > ? 3J>3)33 33 3 33 > 3 ^ > 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 318 645 9 



